Live Muppet Navigation! (WyriUV4XUS8)

https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=WyriUV4XUS8

Okeck. What is truth? Young men speaking in the city square Trying to tell somebody that it gives Can you blame the voice of youth for asking What is truth? Yeah, the ones that you’re calling wild Are gonna be the leaders in a little while When will the lonely voice of youth cry What is truth? This old world’s wakened to a newborn babe And our solemn lists where it’ll be their way You better help that voice of youth find What is truth? And the lonely voice of youth cries What is truth? Alright, welcome, welcome. So we’ve got the microphone problem finally fixed. I’ve got my boom back, I was missing parts. So now the sound for all of my videos will be better. Jesse will be very happy. We’ve got our Sam Pell, of course. We’ve got some Jordan Ammons because some idiot let me go to the store by myself earlier today. I do have M&Ms later too, why I do not know. But again, should not be allowed to shop on my own. Then we’ve got some Bear Claw Tea from Table Rock Tea Company in South Carolina. Good stuff. So what we’re doing is a little bit different. I don’t have a set topic for discussion, we’ll say. But what I do have are a number of things that came up over the week. Particularly today, when stuff came up today and people were like, oh, you should talk about this, you should talk about that, right? Things I’m noticing. So I figured, you know, we’re sort of evolving things a little bit here. I figured I’d talk about that and see where that goes. And, you know, maybe I’ll be done early and people can hop in earlier than normal. Good to see you Anselman. Hello, Dali. South Africa, it’s late in South Africa. Yeah, let’s get started. There’s a number of little things. I think just as a general observation, it’s sort of interesting, right? To ask the question, why are people sort of having the problems with and struggling with a lot of the terms that I’ve been defining, particularly these live streams, but also on navigating patterns in general, right? A lot of that, a lot of those concepts and terms and pieces of terminology and ideas are things people seem to struggle with quite a bit. There’s quite a bit of difference of what do you mean by action? You know, what do you mean by discernment? What do these things mean? And it’s worth sort of pondering. And again, I’m not here to give you answers, right? But it’s worth pondering. Wow, why is all this confusion? What is sort of causing this? And I think, you know, sort of the first topic I want to cover is this flattening of identity. And is that what’s causing us to flatten the world, to reduce things, right? Or is the reduction of the world causing us to reduce our identity? I mean, is that what caused people to kind of squeeze out the sort of religious frame and think everything’s, quote, secular, right? Because people aren’t identifying, you know, they’re not saying, I’m a father, I’m a mill worker, right? And a Christian, right? They don’t, right? They don’t say they don’t give all their identities, right? They’re just giving like one. And that’s been going on for a while. That’s part of the flattening or reduction of the world is why are people trying to identify as a single thing? Like, that’s a little ridiculous. And, you know, one of the things we’re leaving out of that identification, of course, is our religious affiliation. And like, that’s what secularity is to some extent, is leaving out your religious beliefs out of the equation. And I mean, is that valid? And when we flatten the world, when we sort of take away the vertical causality is the way to think about it. I know it’s a big topic in the Van der Kley, Vervecky world, right? It’s vertical causality. Peugeot talks about vertical causality. I totally agree. Excellent frame. Vertical causality, very important. But we’ve taken that away. That’s the flattening of the world. And what else are we missing? Like, we’re missing the ability to revivify the world. We’re missing renewal, maintenance. We’ve got to maintain things. And that requires responsibility. And where is responsibility? Where is the responsibility? For yourself. For the things around you. For others. And you see this trend. Oh, the government’s responsible for my condition. I sold my soul to this guy who’s forcing me to work for very little pay. Where’s the responsibility there? Where’s the, you know, Peterson talks about responsibility, right? To some extent. But he doesn’t really give it the hierarchical flavor, ironically, that he talks about. Like, what is the hierarchy of responsibility, dude? I mean, is your first responsibility to take care of yourself? I don’t know about that. What about responsibility for others or the things outside of you? Because we’re still being individualistic about it. And you can see this lack of maintenance, lack of renewal and responsibility because people are ignoring the history. So they’ve flattened everything to the point where they’ve flattened out time. Time no longer progresses. Ironically, the progressives don’t have a time progress line. They’re erasing history. It’s hard to progress if you weren’t in a place before. And if progress is a value, then it behooves you to make the past as miserable and horrible and terrible as possible. Because then you’re better, right? Because the progress, I mean, that’s what it states. Implicitly. And explicitly, I would say. And that’s sort of the problem is that this flat world thing is everywhere. One thing that happened today, ironically, I went to we went to solve a problem with a Linux system. And I did a thing and it didn’t. Well, my workers do a thing and didn’t work. And I went, well, I’ve done this before. Why didn’t this work? And it turns out and we do the guys are like, oh, we could just rebuild the system. Don’t worry about it. No, no, no. You don’t understand. I need to understand all of the things that broke to create this problem because this is a very weird problem to have given how Unix is set up and how Linux should work. Oh, and then you dig in and you find out five years ago everything broke with respect to this one operation. And it’s not clear why. I mean, I did eventually figure it out. But it’s like these people wrote a bunch of stuff over again that was already working. And now it’s broken. And they don’t know that. And because it’s broken, a bunch of other things are broken and things that used to work no longer work. And nobody can figure out why. Or almost nobody. It was very weird. And, you know, people’s answers to the question of how do I do this thing that I want to do or don’t do that. And I was like, well, except that what he’s asking to be able to do is perfectly valid. And it used to work. And so the answer don’t do that is really not appropriate. And it occurred to me these people don’t take responsibility for the changes they’re making. They’re not revivifying the Linux operating system, right, or the Unix operating system. They’re not renewing it. They’re not revivifying it. They’re not maintaining it. They’re just writing new stuff without understanding what it impacts. That’s part of this flattening of time, right, flattening of history. And when we do that, we don’t have an appreciation for things unfold over time. People start good and go bad. People start bad and go good. Sometimes that’s in the form of redemption, although I would say not always. I have my own views on redemption. We’ll probably do a, we’ll do an old style monologue on redemption at some point. And this this flattening of the world, this reduction, right, this this sort of removal of vertical causality, this receding from good and evil. So if you assume the good and you recede from evil, you’re still flattening the world. When you do that, you end up in this horizontal thinking, right? There it’s the binary thinking. I have a video on that, a navigating pattern. Check it out. It’s a really good video, right? You’re stuck with A or B because you’re on a binary. And now we’re talking about this this morning and I had kind of forgotten because I was driving to work. And, you know, I can’t really take notes in the car, although I’ve got ideas as to how I could make that happen. And we’re chatting away. And when the world is horizontal, when you’re stuck in this binary thinking, people are either on your side or they’re not. And the problem is you’ve got this closed world, even within the binary. It’s a closed world. But what ends up happening is everything on your side is you because you don’t have good boundaries at all. Like binary thinking means you don’t have good boundaries. Like if the world is A and B, if it’s Democrat or Republican, like you don’t have good boundaries. Your ability to do boundaries is zero. And so what’s actually happening, everything that agrees with you or you think agrees with you or think should agree with you is you. That’s that neoplatonic oneness that everybody’s attracted to. That’s what you’re attracted to. That’s not the way the world is. But in a closed world, it’s just you, this oneness, this neoplatonic bullshit. You’re fooling yourself. And then everything that’s not you. But everything that’s not you is other, enemy. Right. It is that supposed big tent, let everybody in, we’re all liberals here attitude that creates the binary and the otherness. It has to. Because you’re trying to include people that don’t want to be in your big, smelly, ugly, disgusting tent with you. You’re a dirty, smelly hippie. Go away. How’s that? Clear? I don’t like it. I need a building, a solid foundation and a big building so I can keep evil out. You in your big tent and let the evil in and then, oh no, everyone’s good. No, everyone’s not good. And good people can go bad. And if you can’t punish them because you’ve got a big tent and we don’t kick anybody out, they’re not going to know it. And they’re going to get worse. Almost certainly. They’re not going to have a revelation. You’re not going to redeem them by yourself. That’s bullshit. That’s you fooling yourself because everybody’s on your side with you. They’re one with you. You have to be one with me. That way there’s no friction. There’s no disagreement. Everyone’s happy together because we’re together. That’s garbage. And the thing is, if you propose a larger world to these people, then now there’s things outside of their world and that’s judging them. Wait a minute. You have to live in the big tent with us. Otherwise, we don’t know about you. You’re judging us. Well, yeah, kind of. The fact that you don’t have to live in the big tent with all the smelly hippies says something about the dirty smelly hippies. Yeah, it does. It doesn’t have to be negative. They make it negative, which is fine by me. Hey, you want to see that your thing is negative? I’m okay with that. I didn’t call you a bad guy. So if you propose a larger world, the judgment is evil because it comes from the outside of you. And things from the outside judge you in pin-point. So if you propose a larger world, the judgment is evil because it comes from the outside of you. The judgment is evil because it comes from the outside of you. And things from the outside judge you and pin-upon you. They’re evil. Yeah, I get it, guy. But that’s you. It’s not me. It’s not those people outside. And you can see where equality doctrine comes from. We all have to be equal because we have to be dirty smelly hippies in the tent together. We can’t have these walls and doors and security protocols to keep the evil out because then we have to judge people. And I don’t want to be judged. That’s horrible. I get it, dude. But also, no, it’s not an optional thing. You will be judged. What you do matters. There’s this whole thing about body count all over the freaking internet. I didn’t know what the hell they were talking about. Body count to me is like, how many people did you shoot? How many bodies do you have to bury? Yeah, that’s my kind of body count. No, no, they’re talking about how many people you slept with. Like, oh, notches on the bedpost or the belt buckle or whatever. Right. That’s how we used to talk about it. And people are upset. Like, oh, no, you shouldn’t ask about body count. Why? Do you think what you’ve done in the past doesn’t matter? It doesn’t shape you as a person? I’m sorry, but it does. And that doesn’t have to be a negative. The fact that you’re assuming that your body count number is a negative says everything about you and nothing about the other person whatsoever. That’s kind of important to know. Let’s suppose, oh, yeah, you slept around and figured out that was a mistake. Well, now I know you can learn from mistakes. Now I know you can recognize mistakes. Now I know you can learn. Now I know whether or not you feel regret. That’s kind of handy to know about a person. And there’s nothing wrong with the other case. Oh, I’ve been a perfect, pure, pristine person and not slept around. And OK, well, I have to protect you from the world. Yeah, that’s good to know, too. Could go either way on both accounts. I get that. But stating that either is bad is you. It’s not the other person. They didn’t do that. And if they made a decision and rejected you, well, yeah, that happens, dude. I want to tell you. I think that’s wrapped up in this horizontal thinking in this way that things go. And look, the real question here is, we’ve got all these people talking, right? We’ve got Brett Weinstein and Eric Weinstein and Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Pigeot and John Berveke. And look, one of John’s best pieces of work is relevance realization. So why is this idea of relevance realization? Because I’m going to argue that although they don’t use the term, a lot of people are talking about relevance realization and not just we’ll say in the Peterson sphere, which I think is a better way to talk about TLC, which is the worst way to talk about anything ever. It is everywhere. It’s all over the place. People are talking about how do we make decisions? How do we come to things? How are we figuring out what to pay attention to? Wow. Attention really matters. Like they’re starting to notice these things for sure in all kinds of places that you’d never expect. People are starting to bump into philosophical questions. Right. People are starting to bump into these questions around, oh, well, you know, neuroscience and therefore. But where are the gaps? Or, oh, physics says this. But really, physics doesn’t actually know. Right. They’re starting to bump into this. I mean, you see it all over the place. And you probably don’t if you’re not looking in those corners. I happen to be able to keep my eyes on lots of corners at once. So I see it everywhere. It’s all converging on the same. I would call them religious issues. David’s called them metaphysical issues. No such thing as metaphysics. See my video. Why is that happening? What is this relevance realization idea about? Why is it such a big deal all of a sudden? And I think that we need it. Because people are realizing we don’t live in a materialistic flat world. Because materialism is a flat world. Because you only have materialism. There’s no vertical causality materialism. Because it can’t be. Because there’s no vertical element to the material. The material is already reduced. It’s already a reduction. It’s a reduction to what you see and bump into. Which has nothing to do with the unseen movers that move things that you bump into. Or move you. Which we’re just rejecting outright as individualists. I’m in total control of myself. And I use rationality. That’s how I control myself. And that’s what controls my behaviors. Really? You know what? Let’s walk down the street for an hour. I will show you how irrational you are. I’ve done this to people before. It’s very traumatic by the way. So I don’t recommend you take me up on that offer. But I’m happy to do it. But we don’t live in this world. The materialism frame is failing left, right and center. And everybody is bumping into it. They’re reaching the end of the materialism. And some of us have been there already. Because we were really good at it. See, that’s the other thing that annoys me. These modern materials are terrible at materialism. They’re just awful. They just haven’t hit the end of it yet. I hate it years ago. So I’m like, that frame doesn’t work. Don’t you notice? They don’t. So you have to re-enchant the world. Right? And when you re-enchant the world, the first problem that comes up is what to pay attention to. Relevance realization. Relevance realization is wrapped up in attention and hierarchy. Relevance is hierarchy. Realization is attention. Not just those things, but that’s part of it. So now you have a problem that you didn’t have before. That’s why this relevance realization idea, the idea that, oh, why are we paying attention to this and not that is big. That’s why. Because the world is now enchanted. Because materialism has failed. We’re reaching the end of it. People are bumping into the bounds and constraints of materiality. So now we need relevance realization. That’s why it’s big now. And you kind of see this. So, you know, see, Eric Weinstein was doing a talk with Chris Williamson. And I have a hard time watching Chris Williamson. It’s just like, oh, I don’t even know where I’d begin to try and fix this guy. He’s so confused. He’s so I could not point him in the right direction. I tried. I tried. I just I was like, I can’t even get a handle on this. This is so wacky. I’m sure we’d go differently if I could have a live conversation with him. But just engaging with his videos just gives me a headache and makes me cry. So he’s in Vanderklai. I didn’t get all the way through the Vanderklai video from I think it was yesterday, maybe the day before. And so Vanderklai’s got a clip of this. Eric Weinstein’s going, all right, I don’t understand why anybody followed Milo Yiannopoulos. And I’m like, really? That’s what you don’t understand. And if you don’t understand that, what makes you think you could understand anything about the world at all? I mean that. Like that’s kind of a whopping important thing to understand. And literally, if you don’t understand that, what business do you have trying to understand anything else? And the thing is, you might say, well, Mark, it’s hard to know. He’s going to hire a Q. He knows all these other things about all these other facts. And he changed these patterns together. And he does. I don’t think he classified it that way. I don’t think he realizes he’s doing it. And he’s very good at some of that for sure. But also he misses some tremendously simple stuff. And I think that’s part of the problem with being able to be complicated. You will prefer complicated answers to simple ones. His brother, Brat, on Twitter, I was just looking at this like an hour ago, posted something about, you know, Sam Harris is a smart man, so why does he blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right? The problem with this is that if you start from the axiom of Sam Harris is smart, you are preferring a complicated frame to a simple one. The simple explanation is that Sam Harris is an idiot. And I can prove that. And it takes 10 seconds. You can just observe what he says. He’s an idiot. OK? Doesn’t mean he’s an idiot about everything. He doesn’t know anything. But he’s an idiot. He’s got Trump derangement syndrome for sure. OK? You’re preferring a complex answer to a simple one. And you’re defying Occam’s razor. The simple explanation for Sam Harris is that he’s an idiot and he’s totally misunderstanding the world around him. And I made a comment about populism, you know, on Twitter today, too. I basically said, you know, and I’ve said this before, populism, when people use that word, all they mean is democracy when they’re voting in a way you don’t understand or don’t like. That’s all that means. No change in the government happened. No change in the way we vote happened. No change in the population happened. Where is this mystical populism? What event preceded? None. No event preceded it. Nothing changed. It’s just it’s a good indication that elitists don’t understand the population. And so they separate themselves from the population. And you can argue elitists are already separated from the population. OK. The intellectual class that was more connected with reality is now less connected with reality. They have become elitist. And because they’re elitist, they are identifying against the population by calling them populists. This is a very complicated way to think about democracy not going your way. The reason why people are voting for, say, Trump is not populism. OK. That doesn’t explain anything. It’s just a word that points to your ignorance about the world. OK. The reason why people are voting for Trump is a positive reason, not a negative one. Populism is usually shown in light of negativity. Why? I don’t know. I mean, it just it is. It’s this separating. It’s this identification against. We’re not them. We’re not populists. We’re democratic voters. There’s no freaking difference. Democracy is democracy, dude. Like, I don’t get it. You prefer this ridiculously complex framing to something very, very simple. If you don’t understand why Trump is popular, then you’re just missing what Trump is about. You’re not seeing the same things as those other people. And look, how do we know an invalid frame, an invalid way of thinking? Because they fracture indefinitely or they self-reference. Or they don’t fit together or they’re jinned up out of thin air or their identifications purely against. Those are all have to be bad. These are good towels for bad ideas, bad concepts and bad frames. Are you identifying something or you’re identifying against something? Because identifying against is just going to fracture forever. Oh, I’m not a populist. Well, then what the hell are you? Are you saying you don’t participate in the democratic process of voting? I don’t know what you mean when you say there’s no possible meaning that you could be communicating by saying that you’re not a populist or by calling somebody else a populist. You’re not conveying a concept. You’re not communicating anything reasonable at that point or anything that could ever be made reasonable. It’s an invalid frame because it fractures indefinitely. And then, you know, another fancy thing that’s going around is, well, you know, there’s reality and then there’s the really real. All right. You can’t define the word using the word. I don’t want to tell people about this. I get you get a PhD, but you need to go back to basic grammar courses. You’re having a problem of basic reading comprehension. OK, I don’t mean to insult you, but also you’re having a problem of basic reading comprehension. You can’t use the word to define the word. That doesn’t work. It doesn’t. It’s non-communicative in language. It is a destruction of the idea of language, of the utility of language, of the ability and usefulness of language itself. You might as well not speak. That would be less damaging to your soul and the soul of others. No, really. You can’t do these things and expect a good result out of your life or the lives of others. That will make you angry and resentful or frustrated or all of it. Don’t do that. Beware of people that are doing that. This isn’t that hard to avoid. And no one’s putting any effort into avoiding it. And to Anselman’s point, you have to devalue language in the postmodern frame because postmodernism devalues language. I’ve been tweeting out all week actually a thesis. And let me know in comments or whatever in the video or in the live chat. I’m thinking about doing like a substack or something on the age of gnosis because I think I could actually write some articles about the age of gnosis, which is my replacement for this idea of modernity, the problem of modernity. No problem of modernity. I have a video on that on Navigating Patterns. No such thing as modernity. It’s a bad way to talk about things. It’s just a horrible way to talk about things. Horrible. It can’t convey anything useful to you. It’s nonconceptual. And we need a way to talk about the change. But I think the age of gnosis is it. Where we’re worshipping knowledge. And these people aren’t even talking about knowledge. That’s the irony. What we have in the world is a flood of signals. And then you get all these signals. And from signals you can and should try to make in formation. In other words, you should put the signals that are coming into you in a formation. That’s what you should do. Postmodernism, by the way, breaks that process down and says, no, no, formation is bad. I have a video on postmodernism on Navigating Patterns. Just saying. Postmodernism tells you formation is bad. Forms, maybe platonic forms too, forms are bad. That structure is bad. This way of thinking about things is bad. You, you, you, you, a person, can just reform the world. But look, we take signals, we form them in formation. Right. And then from those pieces of information, we develop knowledge. Right. It’s this hierarchy. See the knowledge engine model video. It’s excellent. It’s got a bunch of views this week because I put it on Twitter at people’s requests and. I met you, Peugeot, apparently watched it and liked it. This is an older video of yours, but I actually like it. I was like, I don’t know how to take that. It’s good though. It’s good. Not really what he said. I’m obviously being a little hyperbolic, but it was funny to me. It could easily have been interpreted that way. But look, the problem is, and this is the problem of the age of gnosis. Just knowing stuff doesn’t help you. I’ve talked about this before. I don’t know if I’ve talked about a live stream, but there’s a deep asymmetry in the world we don’t recognize. And maybe asymmetry is a good topic for a live stream. There’s a deep asymmetry in the world that we don’t recognize. The man who knows everything but does nothing has no value, comporter, impact on the world. At least not a positive one, because they’re basically a parasite in a leech. But the man who does everything and knows nothing, definitely going to change things. And maybe on average for the better. I don’t know. But I’m not claiming to know, because I think knowledge is not the right frame. I’m trying not to live in the age of gnosis here. Just knowing stuff doesn’t help you. Doing stuff helps you. Knowing stuff? And in fact, it can get in your way, because it leads to this perfectionism paralysis. Where the perfect becomes not the enemy of the good, but the enemy of the better. So you don’t do things, because they’re not going to be perfect when you do them, and then you don’t do anything. I see this all the time. The perfect also crushes confidence, because you don’t do anything. You’re worried about doing things, because it’s not going to live up to your expectations. I stole that from Sally Jo. Don’t tell her. She won’t remember she said it anyway. So perfection is a dangerous concept, and knowledge gives us the impression that perfection is possible. And that it’s possible for us. And we’re living in this stupid world. We keep telling people they’re smart, and we keep telling people they know things that they clearly do not know. That they clearly have very little understanding of. We’re telling them, hey, you understood Plato’s cave in book seven. When clearly, in fact, they did not. They missed the whole point. I’m going to do a video on that. I’m flaming mad about the misrepresentation of Plato’s cave by literally everybody who talks about it. As far as I can tell. I’m going to do a full breakdown on that, and I’m going to bring the goods. So it’s going to be fun. I’m going to say, oh, here’s the part of the text that says this. Oh yeah. And look. This flattening, this gnosis, all this stuff. Historical framing matters. Talk about the Dark Ages. Why? Why do we talk about the Dark Ages? What’s up with that? Because the Dark Ages lead us into enlightenment. We have the enlightenment thinkers. And why? Why is it the enlightenment? Well, because we rediscovered, oddly, ironically, knowledge from the past. Right? Plato and Aristotle, roughly speaking. I mean, more than just that. But those are the main things we rediscovered. And that shines a light. Right? Oh, the knowledge comes in from the darkness and makes the world a better place. It’s made us better. And look, there’s a lot of heavy listing that people think the Enlightenment did that it didn’t do. See my last video that I just released this week with Adam. We kind of touch on this, about the misunderstanding of the Enlightenment and its role in English government. Changeover from monarchy to constitutional republic. And look, I mean, we have this impression that this knowledge is a good thing and that the Enlightenment brought in this knowledge. And before that, it was the Dark Ages. I’m a fan of the Dark Ages framing. I understand Jonathan Pigeot’s point about it wasn’t really the Dark Ages. Right? But we did lose the Enlightenment. We lost the Enlightenment. In other words, you don’t need concrete when you have small cities. It doesn’t help you. It’s too expensive. You don’t need Roman roads. You don’t need the You don’t need Roman roads when you have small trade areas or you have way more ships. Like what’s the need for good roads in England? Honestly, you certainly don’t need good long roads in England. You’re only 60 miles from the ocean at any point in the UK, I believe. So wow, you don’t even need good roads. Crappy roads will do for 60 miles. Who the hell cares? It’s worth thinking about. It’s not that we lost the roads. We did lose the knowledge of concrete, by the way, for a couple of thousand years or something close to that. So I think it was the Dark Ages, but it was the Dark Ages because scale changed. Cities collapsed for various reasons. Average city size went way down. Plagues. There’s all kinds of reasons. It wasn’t one reason. Reducing things to one reason is dumb. That’s the flat end of the world. Don’t do that. Sort of the kind of theme here. And now we’re stuck in this world where high IQ people are revered, but they’re not so smart. Because, and Nassim Taleb talks about this. Read all his books. They’re really excellent. That and the Freakonomics books. Excellent, excellent stuff. IQ is a bad measure. We know this. It’s a bad measure of intelligence. It’s a good measure of stupidity, but lots of things are a good measure of stupidity. And Taleb goes over the math on why that is. By the way, the math, the math on why that is. All humans have the same biases. Or the same set of possible biases. So the fact that your IQ is 150 or whatever the hell doesn’t affect your bias at all. It doesn’t affect your ability to be biased or not be biased. It doesn’t. We actually know this experimentally and no one talks about that by the way. People don’t look this stuff up. They really tell them, I looked it up. Yeah, I know you didn’t look it up because I did. There’s some asymmetry. The guy who actually looked it up actually knows that you didn’t look it up because he has that information and you clearly don’t. Just saying. Smartness, right? One guy who actually goes to the library and looks it up is way smarter than the guy with the 230 IQ or whatever the hell it is. Way smarter. And we don’t understand that. Now it may be only that one issue, but so what? Are you going to tell me you can determine which issues Brett Weinstein or Eric Weinstein is smarter at and less smart at? I don’t think you can. There’s not much of a solution there because humans have foibles. We have these sort of drives that put us in a situation where we’re looking towards a certain thing. And away from other things, right? There’s that relevance realization. 230 IQ has the same problem. They’re looking, they have confirmation bias. They have sample bias. They have all these problems. They’re still driven by their passions. They’re going, I control my passion. No, you don’t. You’re full of garbage. You’re lying to yourself. You can lie to yourself. Just do it alone. Don’t lie to me to lie to yourself, please. I don’t want to be involved in your personal deception. Most people lie to themselves and they lie to you to convince themselves that they don’t actually care about you at all. Just saying. It’s worth thinking about. We’re all subject to the same human condition. And people that we call elite or think of as elite believe that they are not subject to the same human conditions. That’s literally what they believe. That’s why they’re elitist. That’s what makes them elite. And the thing is, we sense this. Not everybody reliably, but most people intuit this. They go, oh, there’s something wrong with that guy. I don’t like him or that girl. I don’t like her. Right. There’s this elitist. And we intuit it. There’s something we have in us that gives us an innate sensibility about elitism, about people who are setting themselves apart. It’s not necessarily a bad thing. Right. But it’s important to know when somebody’s setting themselves apart from you, where they’re the enlightened democratic liberal thinker and you’re the populace. Really? Is that how that works, dude? I think not. But you should believe these things. It’s not perfect. But it’s there and it’s worth listening to. And it’s worth listening to when others say it. I’m always surprised. I know I’ve told this before, but I’ll tell it again. It’s worth telling again. The number of years ago is quite a few years ago. Probably not too long after 9-11. Maybe five years after 9-11 or something. I was like, you know, don’t call me an atheist. My friends are like, what? Why? Because they’re all bad people. And they’re just staring at me like, what? Like, yeah. And I was thinking of Sam Harris back then, for sure. Yeah, Sam Harris is a bad person. I’ve always known he’s a bad person. Always. Zero times did I think he was a good human being. Sorry. Sorry if you didn’t see it. I really am. But I saw it was clear as day. To me, this is what it is. I’m not trying to set myself apart here. I’m just saying that’s what happened. And part of that in a intuitive sense of good and bad or right and wrong or good and evil, however you want to frame it, part of that intuitive sense of people who are setting themselves apart inappropriately is this sense of hierarchy that we have. And there is a hierarchy of importance. This goes back to the relevance realization. That’s what relevance realization is. Talking about the sense of importance, the hierarchy of importance. Not all it is, right? I’m not throwing out definitions to contain things. I’m just trying to co-locate for you. What are we learning first? There’s a lot of talk now about music and how, what’s the name, Oliver Anthony there, and set the world on fire instantaneously. And you had to manipulate the algorithm because who could get that popular, that fat, literally anybody, by the way. Obviously. Anyway, it happens all the time. It’s just sometimes we’re pissed. Sometimes we’re not, I guess. And Peterson, and I haven’t watched the whole thing yet, but Peterson’s puzzled. Like, what is it about music? And my question is, I hear you, Peterson. I hear you. What is it about music? That’s a fair thing. But let me ask you a question. Why the hell is it that we don’t know what music is before we’re learning quantum physics or psychology or economics? What is that about? You don’t know what music? Music moves people in ways that quantum physics doesn’t. And psychology doesn’t. Psychology can’t even explain it. Wouldn’t we learn that first? Or at least learn about it first? Or at least have some way to relate to it before we go learning psychology and economics and physics and chemistry? That’s worth thinking about. And just before I did this, I’m seriously scrambling and arranging my notes here. There’s not a huge number of notes, but there’s some notes here for sure. It’s not that I don’t believe in the sincerity of people who say, I want to change the world, or I want to do music, I want to do ministry. It’s not that I don’t believe that that’s what he wants or that that’s good. It’s not a belief in his sincerity that I lack. It’s a belief in his ability. I don’t think he’s being inauthentic when he says that. And it’s not just him. I’m just using him because that’s the example. It’s that I don’t trust his ability to do that. I don’t think he’s wrong. And it’s interesting because Peterson points out to him, what if there’s nothing, and Peterson actually makes the statement, there’s nothing higher than a concert. I’m like, well, that’s, I don’t know, man. I think bold claim, very Protestant claim, I would say. But if you’re not the person to do it, if you’re not the person to lead, you’re not the person to lead. It’s not that we don’t need a leader. It’s not that I don’t think you don’t believe we need a leader, just that I don’t think you’re it. That’s a different thing. It’s not a lack in faith of your solution. It’s a lack of faith in your implementation or your ability to implement. That’s a different thing. And we confuse those things a lot because we’re flattening the world. We’re reducing it. We’re compressing everything down. We’re trying to understand it within ourselves. It’s a mistake. You’re too stupid to understand the world. Too stupid to understand any part of the world at all. Get over it. You’re a muppet. I’m a muppet. We’re all muppets. It’s fine. It’s fine. It’s been fine for thousands of years. Relax. I think this comes from once you give people the postmodern idea that they can project things into the world, that they have the ability and the authority to frame the world the way they want or the way they see or the way they think they see. You get what we see around us. You get all these people coming up with these descriptions that are perfectly valid. Look, I can describe any number of things in any number of ways. The same thing. This is not hard. This is not a magic trick. This is not a difficult thing. Some people can’t do it. Maybe most people can’t do it. I totally get that. But this is not a difficult thing. Okay. At the end of the day, I can teach people to take the same event and talk about it six different ways. It’s not that hard. It’s not that hard. Okay. It’s not that hard. But it’s not good. Because we can’t find agreement if people are doing that. We’ll never ever ever mathematically, and it is mathematically certain, have anything in common at that point. Unless we’re not unique. But that would be horrible. Of course we’re unique. I’m doing the broadcasting. You’re doing the watching. Some of you are commenting the livestream, and some of you are not. Some of you are going to watch this recorded, and some of you… There’s nothing wrong with this variety. But we’re not the same. We’re not equal. Thank God. Some of us can come up with very good, useful descriptions that a lot of people can find in common and go along with. And some of us can’t. Most of us can’t. The postmoderns would tell you that you can. That your interpretation of Moby Dick as a lesbian triumph over the patriarchy, and believe me, someone’s done it. If not, I’ll do it for you. It’s not that hard. Is valid. Somebody’s done that, and they think it’s valid. It’s not valid. Is it valid? That’s insane. It splits us apart. I don’t want to split us apart. You want common sense? You better have common things. You’re not going to get common sense in the world. Your senses cannot be in common when you do something that’s not common. Your senses cannot be in common when you don’t have common virtues and values. When you don’t have commonality. When you don’t have common interpretations. When you don’t have common experiences. You’re not going to get common sense. You’re going to get individual sense. And it’s going to be different for everybody because we’re all different. If we’re not all different, evolutionary theory set doesn’t work, by the way. So maybe you’re an evolution denier. Seems likely. I think we’re unique. I think we have to struggle to have things in common. I think that’s inevitable. It’s just the way it is. Sorry if you don’t like it. I’m sorry if I don’t like it. It’s also not optional. It’s not up to you. It’s not up to me. You’re a Muppet. I’m a Muppet. We’re all Muppets. It’s the Muppet stream. It’s live Muppet navigation. All right. I think I’m going to stop it there. I hope I made my points. I don’t know if I did or not. I’m going to take a sip of some San Pell and go through some comments. I’ve gone through a couple as we go here, but I wasn’t trying to follow the whole thing. So forgive me for having to do this. Such is the way of the world. Identity. I’m about to do a whole video on identity and the flattening of the world. I don’t think it’s possible. I don’t think people have a really good sense of identity. I mean, to some extent, I don’t think it’s possible. I don’t know. How do I identify myself to other people so they’ll understand there’s no possible way I can do that? Like, what am I going to tell you? I know a lot about a lot of things because I’ve been through a lot of stuff. I’ve been through a lot of things. I’ve been through a lot of things. I’ve been through a lot of things. I’ve been through a lot of things. I’ve been through a lot of things. I know a lot about a lot of things because I’ve been through a lot of stuff. Like, there you go. Identity is hard, but a lot of people identify as their job, or a lot of people identify as their role in their family. But they don’t do multiple identifications on average. Hanselman, Friday night, Saturday morning, weekend feeling nice. There you go. Sally, maybe it’s flat because at that level, identity could be considered flat if the next level is character, for example. Or maybe when you develop character, the flatness becomes less flat. Again, are we flattening identity and that’s causing us to flatten the world? Or are we flattening the world and that’s causing us to flatten identity? And I think maybe both are certainly true, right? We keep flattening the world. We’re trying to understand the world alone by ourselves as an individual. This is one of the deep problems of individualism. You’re trying to be an individual and you’re being told you can understand the world. If you’re an individual alone in the world, you’re kind of screwed. You can’t live that way. You’re not going to survive. If you need a house, unless you’re building your own house, and you probably didn’t because almost nobody does, you’re screwed. And you’ve got to grow your own food. It’s endless. I mean, you’re not on the internet, that’s for sure. You can’t have internet and be an individual. Sorry. You’re connected to everybody in the world if you’re on the internet or everybody else on the internet at least, which is a significant portion of the world. And I think that’s part of this flattening idea. We’re flattening identity so that we can understand other people easily, right? And that’s the core, we’ll say the core problem. The core problem is that people are flattening things out. And I don’t think that’s great. It is the flattening that’s bothering me the most, we’ll say. When I hear the word flat, I literally think of a piece of paper with a drawing of the world on it. Yes, well, that’s, if you haven’t read Flatland, it’s a wonderful book. Read Flatland. Really helped me understand something about dimensionality and such not that I, I think if you throw math at me, I’m lost. Math and I hate each other, so. Voice typing, yes. Well, look, there is a, there is a, there is a lot of, there is a lot of, voice typing, yes. Well, look, there is a, there is an app, an accessibility app on the, on the Android phone that works rather well and does neat things. But it’s a pain to use and you have to retranscribe everything because you can’t even copy paste out of it, which makes me think the people who wrote it are really dumb. But what do I know? I’ve only been writing software my entire life. Dali, Anselman, the oneness and the non-duality. People end up threatening evil and good as equally acceptable. Right. Well, they have to. They’re flattening the world. Evil, good and evil are on the vertical causality line. And that’s the, and that’s the problem. That is the problem. Dali, I think that once a person realizes they have literally been or are being a fool, if they can, they see themselves from a very different point of view. I would argue they have to see themselves from a very different point of view to do that. But whatever. And that is a good opportunity to practice humility. I think you need the humility first, my friend. But I understand your point. Ooh, Anselman. Every action is significant, consequential. We’re back to Peterson, right? Maybe everything you do matters. Yeah, maybe. Isn’t that terrifying? Here we go, Mills. Nobody is obligated to enter into a relationship with others. That’s exactly what the core issue is, Mills. You’re right. You put your finger on it. The body count thing is loaded up with this denigration of personal choice. Denigration of personal choice. Exactly. Exactly. And like I said, high body count doesn’t have to be a negative if you learn from it that maybe that’s a bad idea. But if you didn’t, maybe you’re going to keep doing it. And maybe then you can’t be in a relationship with me. And look, you can chastise me all you want for that. I went through that, though. So F off, first off. And no, you’re wrong. I’m just saying. I literally went through that. So no. Yeah, somebody’s trying to up their body count and stay in a relationship with me at the same time. And actually, to my great shame and discredit, tolerated that for quite a while. Yeah. And you know, that’s part of this equality doctrine bullshit. It’s bullshit. And it’s bad. And it makes you a bad person. And don’t do it. How’s that? Just so we’re clear. I don’t want to be unclear. None of this big tent, open big tent garbage. It’s garbage. It’s bad. And it makes you a bad person. It makes the people around you a bad, bad people. It’s just bad for everybody. Just going through more comments here, trying to find anything I should. I should address. All males. Also, the preservation of choice being held is important enough that it undermines commitment. Well. Oh, Dolly, this is good. I think some people try to understand the world a bit too soon. Yes, they do. And then they end up. In no longer learning the things they think they already know. And they end up infantilizing themselves because they’re individuals. And once you’re an individual, man, you’re done. You need to learn anything. You’re finished. Hey, you’re an individual. You’re you’re at the end. You don’t, you know, now everything’s the rest of the world’s fault because you’re complete. You’re an individual. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, this is the problem with individualism. Mills, it breaks some people. What do you think about the Brett situation? What Brett situation? I mean, Brett’s all over the place. I stopped listening to him years ago. They did the 10 true things. You know, he did it with his wife there and like two of them were wrong. And I was like, no, that’s wrong. I’m not listening to you anymore. And I shut it off. I haven’t listened to Dark Horse since I’ve listened to pieces, but I haven’t listened to Dark Horse broadcasts. They went off the rails. I saw them go off the rails. I said, not wasting my time with this anymore. Not supporting these clowns. It’s too bad. I like Heather a lot. I said this with with PVK once. Right. Like there’s who’s the smarter brother, Eric or Brett? Brett. Who is the smarter person? Heather. Heather’s smarter than both of them. Well, and I think Dali brings up a good point here. What I mean is that I think there should be a good foundation built first and one can develop and grow eventually reach that level where they’re taking on taking that on is more appropriate or less risky. Yeah, exactly. It’s very risky to engage with forbidden knowledge. And ironically, Plato talks about this in The Republic. One of the driving features of the Republic is the idea of forbidden knowledge. And the way Plato arrives at that in the Republic, by the way, in the book, the actual book, The Republic, I think it’s book two, is by talking about children and development. That’s actually the driving force for the rest of the conversations in the book. No, really. If nobody told you that they did you a disservice and we should shoot them. No, really ridiculous, ridiculous to leave that out. Super important. Super duper important. Mills, do you think fundamental beliefs have to be inherited or prescribed? Well, yeah, I don’t see any other way it can happen. I don’t think that there’s no other way that it can happen for anybody. But on average, and this is where people get confused, right? Any given individual is going to have to get their beliefs prescribed because learning them from scratch by yourself is too hard and it takes too long. And then it’s too late. And so if you don’t have a lineage of passing things down to the irony, all these other things, right? The irony is all these evolutionists don’t like the idea of passing things down. That’s the irony. If you listen to them closely, you learn everything by yourself on your own. It’s like, what? Then what’s the point of evolution? Like, why would you even bother with that process would be completely inefficient? Like you’re undermining your own set of theories and hypotheses and wild ideas and wrong things and inferences because evolution is not a theory. Like, I’m sorry. I’m just talking about it wrong at some point. Anselman, the only wisdom we can hope to acquire is the wisdom of humility. Humility is endless. T.S. Eliot said that. T.S. Eliot is a pretty smart dude. You should believe him. Mills, I would agree, but humility alone seems to be generating a structure without that foundation. I don’t know about that. Kind of a skepticism that extends even to the most basic beliefs. I would say humility is not linked up with skepticism. The only way you get skepticism is with ego. Ego causes skepticism. Humility causes you to go along. And look, sometimes you shouldn’t go along. I totally get that. But mostly you should. And mostly you do, whether you realize it or not. Anselman, language is often devalued these days in the postmodern error. Yes. People evade precision in communication. Well, I don’t think that’s fair. I’m going to push back on you there, Anselman. I don’t think people can be precise in their speech. I think that’s a skill you have to develop and mature into. And I don’t think we’re teaching that. We’re not holding people to standards like that anymore. We’re not holding people to standards like that anymore. And you see that reflected in the school’s own measurement of its own success, where you get people in college at a fifth grade reading level. That happens in the U.S. With surprising regularity. It may not be the norm or anything, but the fact that it ever happens is sort of telling about our precision and our willingness to set boundaries on people and exclude people who need more help. The problem with not setting boundaries is not only are you potentially enabling somebody, but even if you’re not enabling them, you’re not helping them. You don’t know which side of the line they’re on. You don’t know what they need. You can’t give them any help. Or you can’t give them the right kind of help. Now, if you don’t give people the right kind of help, maybe you’re enabling them. Maybe. That seems like a fair way to think about it. Maybe you need to set those boundaries so you can fit in with the people you’re trying to set boundaries on. Maybe you need to set those boundaries so you can filter that out so that you can know what they do and do not need. This is the old test where somebody says, oh, I’m hungry. I need money for food. And you offer them a sandwich and they say no. Were they going to spend the money on food, do you think? I don’t think so. Don’t believe what people say. Hanselman, I have had to develop a motto I recite to myself. Life is imperfect. Oh, man. Hanselman, you and I. Yeah. You and me both, brother. You and me both. I’m constantly telling people, yeah, life isn’t perfect. Right. Yeah, you got to get out of that perfection trap. It’s so pervasive. And the thing is, science shines through. Science shines through. Science shines through. The thing is, science shines a light and just tempts us with perfection because it’s right there. It’s right there. And oh, the science tells us. And it’s all a lie. It’s all a lie. Mills, I look forward to book seven analysis. Well, I’m going to do a special video. I can’t analyze all of book seven. There’s actually three, maybe four whopping, whopping huge neoplatonisms in book seven. There’s all kinds of stuff in book seven that people never talk about. I’m just going to focus on the lie of Plato’s cave and the way people talk about it because, my goodness, have they lied to you? Lied to you, lied to you, lied to you, terribly. There are horrible people that should all be shot. Like, that level of deception is unacceptable to me. Unacceptable. Dalit. Oh, I have a random question. What do you think would happen if nostalgia and utopia were put in the fighting ring together? Well, I’d say they are codependent, so they wouldn’t fight. Mills. Mark. It’s pirate captain. Come on, dude. I’m curious what you would say is the proper role of knowledge and that of speculation. Oh, that’s good. I would put speculation above knowledge in all cases. Speculation. If you properly understand speculation, you’re already in the realm of humility. Right? Because you know you’re speculating. You know that you don’t know. There you go. You’re aware of your limit of your knowledge and that you’re casting something into the future potentially inappropriately. I would argue you don’t need what we would refer to in the age of gnosis as knowledge, because the age of gnosis, I’m going to make the case later, but you know, later, later, like in the far future probably, maybe in the substack that I’m thinking of setting up. Please let me know if you like that idea. That’ll help me decide whether or not I want to put a bunch of time into that or energy more appropriately. I’m going to make the case that the age of gnosis is wrapped up in propositional knowledge. And then, of course, I’m going to destroy the idea of knowledge and propositional knowledge because it’s garbage, but one step at a time. See my video on the knowledge engine. It’s a wonderful video. Honest. Watch it multiple times. You’ll get it. Tell your friends, family, hold people at gunpoint, make them watch it, whatever it takes. Hanselman, as I have remembered from reading it many moons ago, utopia is a sacrificial critique, not a plan. Right. That is true. That is true. Hanselman, nostalgia isn’t what it used to be. That is also true. Also true. Hey, BubbleViz. Good to see you. Man, I’m never going to get through this. You guys have been yapping away in my live stream comments. This is wonderful. Let’s see. Ah, Dally got there. I think if they were put in the ring together referring to nostalgia and utopia, they’d knock each other out at the same time and fall down simultaneously and the non-existence can confirm. That was sort of my feeling about it, too. There’s no place for utopia. Yeah, there really isn’t. I need another drink, man. Whew. It has been a barn burner of a week, which is part of the reason why I didn’t go with the monologue idea. I think I’m going to have to do a little bit of a I don’t live in that space of presence, but it’s important to experience dropping into that space underneath schemas into just observation. Hard to find. Look, observation is the easiest thing in the world, and that’s why intellectuals hate it because it’s accessible to everybody, so they can’t be special. It doesn’t require high IQs. Their skill set is not in use, right? And it’s very hard because people are preferring that. They’re preferring these complicated answers. He’s like, oh, he’s really smart, which is why. It’s like, I don’t know. He’s an idiot, which is why. It’s not hard. You don’t have to come up with these complicated ways of understanding the world. Music makes pictures and often tell stories of it. Stories all of it magic and all of it true. The music is you, John Denver. Yes, I love John Denver, actually. Whenever I drive into West Virginia, it’s country roads. I love it. I love it. I love it. I love it. I love it. I love it. I love it. It’s a little hard to drive into West Virginia. It’s country roads. Sometimes for the whole state, because it’s a small state, zip right through it. But still, you know, you can’t have too much country roads. It’s not possible. Yeah, I mean, music is interesting, right? Because people don’t have a good conception. And I’m always surprised that they don’t. I’m like, really? It’s a little important, guys. It’s moving the world way more than any of the other things you are talking about. You would think that you start there. I don’t know. I’m just saying. I don’t know, Deli. Everybody needs to find their song and sing it. Maybe. Maybe. Alex, clarify all that as in not so hot as Peterson’s song. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. Maybe in not so hot as Peterson says. You’re going to have to give me a little more context because I don’t remember what I was saying at that time. Here we go, Ansel. Make your own kind of music. Sing your own special song. Mama Cass Elliot. There we go. Alex, but I will say music is extremely psychedelic. I don’t know about that. I will agree that you should be able to use things like music and painting and stuff like that. Rather than chemicals to get the same effects. If you can’t, I feel very sorry for you. But you probably could if you tried hard enough. You know, Wim Hof uses breathing. It’s the same sort of thing. Ethan, I stopped when they said it’s unethical to want to reproduce yourself into the future regarding children. Yeah, well, that’s a good place to stop. That’s for sure. Like that’s a good tell that people maybe don’t believe that being is good. And people that don’t believe in being is good, maybe you shouldn’t listen to them. Benjamin Franklin, how does one know that? I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. Benjamin Franklin, how does one know which knowledge is provision and which knowledge is not? One doesn’t. Like what is wrong with you, dude? Obviously you can’t do that because you’d have to have access to it. The forbidden knowledge first. So duh. Alright. You are told what is forbidden. Comes down from tradition. Is tradition always right? Or are the authorities implementing the tradition always right? No. Because you live in an imperfect world. Get over it. You don’t know. One doesn’t know. That’s correct. One doesn’t know. One cannot know by definition. That’s the whole point. You engage with forbidden knowledge, you think it’s okay. You never see it as forbidden. Right. That’s the problem of individualism. You want to be an individual? You’re going to run into that problem every single time. Every single time. You’re going to screw yourself. You’re going to screw yourself. Mills, maybe forbidden knowledge is not a good thing. Mills, maybe forbidden knowledge is like a minefield that hasn’t been fully charged. No, I think it’s a minefield that has been fully charged. The problem is you don’t know what blew you up. And I’ve seen this time and time again. And in fact, look, I’ll give you an example. I’ll give you an example. I’ll give you an example. Milo Yiannopoulos. We talked about him earlier. He had a bit of a revelation. I forget which podcast it was that I was watching quite a while back. Basically, he was a man of the mind. He was a man of the mind. Basically, he was saying, well, I’ve got this child that my significant other, who is a man, is responsible for. And he’s about the age, just below the age that Milo was when Milo got sort of taken in by a man and, you know, introduced to the gay lifestyle and culture. And he was reflecting on that in the podcast, in the moment. And realizing, wow, maybe that wasn’t good for me. Because I wouldn’t want that to happen to this boy. I wouldn’t do that to him. Isn’t that interesting? So the forbidden knowledge of gayness was introduced to him at a certain age. And he wouldn’t want to do that to somebody else at that age because he recognizes maybe it did something bad to him. Yeah, maybe. How interesting. How interesting. That, he hit that mind. That blew him apart. He didn’t notice. He’s noticing now, oh, I’m missing my legs. How weird. Dali, when are you and Karen going to chat again? I don’t know. I haven’t reached out to Karen recently. And I think she’s a little upset because I read her comments. I don’t know. I don’t know. I think she’s a little upset because I was in Fremont. But I was only in Fremont for a weekend. I went there specifically to do one thing. Happened to see Joey. Wasn’t really thinking about all the people I could visit because I was only going to be there literally for two days. It’s only for two days. Didn’t really have a lot of time to visit. We did go up and see Joey in Sacramento and Pastor Paul, which is wonderful. I love seeing Pastor Paul. He’s such a wonderful person. Great hugs. That’s what you want from Paul. A big guy with a big heart and a wonderful softness to his soul. Nathaniel, to what extent do you think people should or should not identify on some level with a character archetype of a story? Conflicting opinions on megalomania floating around this little corner. You mean the Peterson sphere. We’re just going to call it the Peterson sphere from now on just to piss everybody off. Also because it’s actually true and everything else they say is actually wrong. But whatever. It’s Protestants. The big church of Peterson is no good for us. We’re going to create our own church. Did I say that out loud? My bad. Anyway. Yeah. Look. The problem is not identifying with these things. The problem is not identity. The problem is not status. The problem is not identification. The problem is not story. The problem is not a postmodern conception. The problem is if you flatten the world, and postmodernism will flatten the world for you, materialism will flatten the world for you, the age of gnosis will flatten the world for you. All of these things will flatten the world for you. Whether you realize it or not, they will. You will get there. I can’t give you a proof now. I’m working on it. I’ve been working on it for I don’t know like 15 years. But I’ll get there someday. Figuring out how to explain the inevitability of these things to flatten. The problem is that we have single identities. And when we try to have single identities because we’re individuals and we can know the world, we can’t. We’re individuals and we can know the world. When you then identify with one piece of a story or one part of an archetype or one archetype, even if you could do that, you’re that thing and nothing else. It’s closed world. You’ve built a closed world based on a tiny piece of an identity. That’s the problem. The problem is the flatness. It’s the lack of vertical causality. You’re supposed to identify with characters in a story. Duh! That’s what stories are for. You’re supposed to be able to identify your relationship to an archetype. Most people can’t do that correctly. They don’t even know the stories correctly. They’re missing key points of Prometheus. The whole story of Prometheus, even I didn’t have all that. You can see if it’s a problem in Edith Hamilton or Bullfinch, which I think Hamilton drew from Bullfinch or vice versa, I forget, where they left out components of the story or if we just don’t emphasize it or what it is. The great myths on Amazon Prime. Really good stuff because they tell the Greek myths in a different order by character. It’s out of order from what I learned, but it’s a way better way to thread the story together because it follows the life of the character and all the well-known myths around them rather than jumping around in some weird way. I think that’s what everybody’s been doing. Hopefully that answers your question. It’s floating around because the people in the Peterson sphere want to be smart. They want to understand the world. They have to flatten the world to do that because you’re stupid. You can’t understand the world. You have to make a very small closed world indeed to understand it. Then this is a problem. I agree. Don’t do that. That’s the solution. Don’t create the problem. Now you don’t have to fix it. Benjamin Franklin. Always a chore, my friend. Always a chore. Nostalgia and stealth can be utopic. All nostalgia is utopia. This is because the nostalgic ones see the past as utopia. No, it’s because nostalgia is a flat world, dude. Because you take out all the detail, all the struggle that happened, and you reduce it down to results. That’s what nostalgia is. Maybe they want to recreate that in the future. No, they definitely want to recreate that in the future. No, they definitely want to recreate it in the present. I think nostalgic ones misremember or omit bad things. Of course, you have to. You can’t replay the past in real time. You have to compress it. It’s not an option otherwise. Some people go, oh, they don’t tell you the full story. Nobody can tell you the full story. That doesn’t mean anything. Stop making silly statements. You can’t tell the full story. You can’t tell the full story. You can’t tell the full story. You probably can’t know the full story. So the fact that you can’t tell the full story shouldn’t be surprising. What are you, retarded? Stop being retarded. Don’t be slow, okay? You don’t know the full story. If you did know the full story, to tell it would take as long as the event that unfolded, probably longer, right? You’re not going to do that. That would be a stupid thing to do. Don’t ask people to do stupid things. It’s stupid. That’s the theme. Don’t be stupid. Benjamin Franklin, but I don’t think the authority is doing wrong. How would you know? You can’t make that determination. By knowing the forbidden knowledge. Maybe they don’t know it. Maybe they just know to stay away from it. And maybe they’re not doing wrong. Maybe they’re able to incorporate the forbidden knowledge, and you’re not. Because that’s going to happen. There are things that I know that you will never understand. And there are things that you know that I will never understand. Fine, fair enough. And if I tell you, no, you shouldn’t try to write that and see. Or if I tell you, no, you shouldn’t try to take the entire Linux init system and rewrite it. Because you’re an idiot and you’ll screw it up. You should probably believe me. Because I’m right about that, by the way. Just saying. It’s actually the problem that I ran into today. Idiots. Rewrote the Unix init system. As though they had any clue what they were doing. And boy, did they screw up so many things. I can’t count the number of bugs with systemd. I can’t even think about the number of things they broke. By miswriting a thing that worked. That worked perfectly fine. And did way better job than their new garbage. Written in crappy modern languages, by the way. Different rant. See my personal channel, which is just my name. For rants like that. I’ve got plenty of them. And there’ll be plenty more. Nathaniel. Authorities of forbidden knowledge require others to go through initiation. But if they just gave it out, then yes, it would be wrong. Exactly. The reason why there are gates. And gates that filters that some people don’t pass. Is to save them. And the rest of us. Not hiding things from you necessarily. Sometimes they are. But they’re not hiding things from you. They’re not hiding things from you. They’re not hiding things from you. They’re not hiding things from you. Sometimes they are. Not necessarily though. Mills. People can prepare themselves to review material that’s blown up people’s minds. Can they? I don’t know that they can. I don’t know how you’d do that if you didn’t already have access to the material. And see that it’s a tendency and say let’s not go there. Well, they can understand that. The first thing you have to do is re-enchant the world. Oh, there’s knowledge that can screw me up permanently if I don’t have access to the material. Oh, there’s knowledge that can screw me up permanently if I don’t have access to the material. Oh, there’s knowledge that can screw me up permanently if I engage with it. Just that acknowledgement. That level of humility alone goes a long way. That level of humility alone goes a long way. Because we don’t have that level of humility. I’ve been seeing posts all week ironically about Oh, the forbidden books are ones you have to read. What? No. No. No. No. And more no. Maybe you can prepare yourself for the fact that you’re a muppet. And you need to be frickin’ careful. Because there’s landmines out there. How’s that? How’s that? Sally Jo. Flat little corner. No more now Peterson’s sphere. No more now Peterson’s sphere. There we go. That’s right. The flat little corner is gone. The mills. Access control. Look, access control is only necessary if you live in a hierarchical world. Look, access control is only necessary if you live in a hierarchical world. But we do. Peterson doesn’t talk about that. But he should. Chris! It’s good to see you my friend. This little corner got themselves cornered. They did? Well, they put themselves in a corner. Yeah. Yeah. Wait a minute. Nope, that’s not what I wanted to highlight. Captain is under house arrest. Am I? Am I? Why am I under house arrest? Did you put an ankle monitor on him? Yeah, well that’s a good question. Nathaniel. It doesn’t answer my question. I appreciate the time you took on it. Well, Nathaniel, ask your question again. And ask for better clarification. And I will address it again if I possibly can. And if not, I’ll just tell you. Because I’m doing my best. I’m not pretending like I’m going to be able to answer things. I’m not here to provide answers, right? Anselman. Purification of memory is a spiritual necessity yet forgetting is important to learning. There’s lots of papers on that by the way. Tons and tons. You should look into it. Not you, Anselman. I’m just saying in general. People think memory is a great thing. It’s like, I don’t know. To view your past correctly and honestly in retrospect. Yeah? Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Alex. Someone tried to rewrite it entirely again. Have you heard of Ubuntu? They regularly try to write about it. They tried to write a display manager. That didn’t work. I think they did systemd. They’ve tried to write several parts of the Unix ecosphere. And every time they do it, it fails. And every time they do it, everyone’s like, oh, they’re going to rewrite this. It’s going to be wonderful. And I’m like, do you not learn? And now they’ve got the snap packaging system. Which is about the worst idea. Just take that off your Ubuntu system immediately. And you’re like, oh, I’m going to write it. Just take that off your Ubuntu system immediately. It’s terrible. Don’t leave it. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Yeah, well, indeed. Alex, rewriting code that worked sounds like what I would do. Yeah, well. We all fall into it. People try to rewrite code all the time. I mean, I do. I’ve fallen into it before, too. Yeah. Has anyone seen Peterson’s interview with Tony Robbins yet? No, I have not. That sounds interesting. Sally Jo, because Galileo versus Flatworld and Roundworld. So if Flat Little Corner is over and the Peterson sphere figures same results. Yes. Yes. Yes. Mills, was it good or interesting? Yeah, the problem with the Peterson interviews is was it good or interesting? That’s a good question. Where is Jesse? I don’t know. All right, look, anybody who wants to jump in, here’s the link. Feel free to do so. I will pin it on navigating patterns. Well, once I can. Although doing things is impossible because Google has broken the world. When I can pin it, I shall pin it. Who wrote this interface? And can I kill them? Dude, you put this stupid, snappy icon in the way of other things. You should probably not be allowed to touch user interfaces. Why is this hard to understand? You don’t put icons on top of other active buttons ever. I don’t know why this is not known to people who touch things, but also they shouldn’t be allowed to touch things. There we go. I’m going to put it in the message. Dali, it was different and I never thought they’d get together and talk. So that made it interesting. Okay, well maybe. That’s worthy. And you claim it’s worth the listen. Oh, here we go. Elizabeth. Hierarchy of responsibility, indeed. Peterson doesn’t talk about the hierarchy of responsibility. It’s a very meaningful sense. And I don’t think you can ever say that about the hierarchy of responsibility in any meaningful sense, except from the individualistic. Emergence first, emergence is good perspective. And that’s a problem. That’s a problem. Oh, Mills. Thank you. Oh, it’s family time. Well, enjoy your family and thank you very much, sir. Have a wonderful time with your family. I’m going to jump in or ask more questions in the live chat. I can try, Nathaniel, to answer more completely whatever it was I was trying to answer for you earlier. I just can’t track all this stuff. I’ve got to have some of this bear claw tea now because Oh, yeah, it’s nice and bitter. I like bitter tea. It’s fantastic. I usually don’t have milk in my tea, although when I was visiting Adam out in California, he had Irish tea with him from Ireland, which is great. And it was wonderful. He made me tea a few times. It was awesome. I love the old world tea. Very good. The old world really does do tea, right? Although I’ve heard a lot of magic is in the water, which I believe. Hard water, soft water, it’s all sort of important, you know? You got to keep track of that stuff. There’s Jesse. Jesse, how are you doing, my friend? All right. Get in there. It’s a Muppet day here. Oh, dude, it’s been a Muppet week for me. I had like, what was it? Wednesday? Wednesday, I was on fire. I was completely indestructible. I sat for four and a half, five hours and did a bunch of legal work. I was like, I mean, I was like bring it on. Bring the whole world to me. I shall crush it all. Beneath my unstoppable fist of doom. And yeah, yesterday was a complete catastrophe. I was like what happened? I think why can’t I just need two days. I just need two of these in a row. It’s all I need. Nope. Nope. Wasn’t going to get it. I didn’t catch all the monologue, but what I did catch. Huh? I didn’t catch all the monologue, but what I did catch was good. Oh, well, yeah, we’re sort of the same sort of monologue. Well, we’ll see. We’ll see what it was good. I’m glad some of it was good. Elizabeth, yep, you’re right about responsibilities. Tie the bind. That’s good, Elizabeth, right? This is really good. What’s missing from the conversation is binding. Is communion. Is commonality. It’s missing. Right? They talk about it in the abstract. They say, oh, we need to all agree on. It’s like, all right, that’s very abstract, dude. What binds us together? What puts us in relationship? What gives us, wait for it, wait for it, intimacy. If you didn’t see that coming, you’re not watching the channel, that’s for sure. What gives us intimacy? That’s another thing I’d put on the sub stack is I’d start talking about intimacy crisis, age diagnosis. I had a third thing. I don’t know what it was. Oh, Alex. I don’t think we’ve met Alex before. Hello, Alex. Welcome. I don’t hear you. Uh-oh. Dali. Oh, well. All right. Hello. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. Thank you for the lovely chat. It’s been awesome. You’re actually such a creative person. I really like that. Oh. Oh, my gosh. My YouTube is on. Let me put that on. Uh-oh. Yeah, I always run into that problem when I’m doing this. I always got to close the other tab. Elizabeth never remembers to close the other tab. You see. There you are, Alex. Oh. Good. Yeah. Good. Okay. How you doing? Sorry. Is that good, bad, or indifferent? Oh, you get a lot of It’s okay. I don’t know if I want to be showing my face on the internet right now, but part of me wants to learn not to care. Yeah. We’ve seen you. You can shut off your camera if you want. I think you’re bleeding audio, though. Someone’s bleeding audio. How do these people with headphones bleed audio? That’s my question. It is because these headphones, the sound will go out and straight into the mic, I feel like, sometimes. Maybe. Yeah, you’re definitely the one bleeding the audio, Alex. Do you have the web page audio open, Alex? Um. Are you a muppet? I’m a muppet. Join the club. I don’t understand this. All I’m getting is like Acre, Acre, Acre. Yeah, I would just have the Tremia nothing else. That usually can’t be. Well, there’s no other tab on, so, I mean, there’s no YouTube tab on, so I’m like, I don’t know. I don’t even know. Elizabeth? Yeah, because I heard you insult me, I think. Oh my god, and I’ve got it wrong again. What? What did I do? I give up. No, I think you’re fine. Well, it was reverberating. No, I think that’s Alex. We’re just gonna mute and unmute Alex, because he’s bleeding audio all over the place. Are you sure it’s not me? I mean, I did something right. No, the minute I muted Alex, it went away. You’re casting dispersions on my character. I was shocked. It’s a good thing I like you so much. I think that I did one of your highlights. You’re just amazing, by the way, Mark. But one of the best, I loved what you said about the hierarchy of responsibility, and we need to dig into that. I think it’s absolutely critical. This whole idea of binding, right? Oh, that’s where fascism came from, right? Excuse me, but I had to admit. No, no, I mean the word, right? The word for fascism, the binding. So come on, because I just met with my little book club, and we’re called Dr. McGilchrist and the Three Lovely Ladies. How cool is that? Anyway, and he talks constantly, constantly about the binding and the connection and the live body, which is in fact the creation of body, if you like, in betweenness as we speak, as we converse, as we bake bread, etc., etc. But this hierarchy of responsibility, and I agree with you about Dr. P. He just, he really doesn’t want to go there. So what do we mean by it? Can somebody tell me what does hierarchy of responsibility mean, in fact? I will give it a shot. So I think that, yeah, I mean, you brought up a bunch of stuff. You always do. On one hand, it’s wonderful. On the other hand, it’s like, what are you doing? Like, are you trying to take Sally Jo’s place? Oh, that’s a compliment. Sally Jo the great. Oh, wow. She’s going to love this. She’s a Sally Jo’s favorite stream already. I can tell you that. Yeah, I think when you mentioned like fascism, it’s like, well, you’re trying to replace the binding, right? And I’m always on the edge. Do I do a video about World War II and certain dictators? Because people are confused. And then I’m like, oh, man, that’s like third rail stuff. Yeah, I know. Jessie’s like, no, right? And so I got to think about how to get that message across, because I was talking about it again today. It comes up all the time, the misunderstanding of what actually happened. So with fascism, you’re using a political binding. You’re binding to the state. Everything’s bound to the state. Explicitly. I’m not making this up. It’s what they said. Read what they wrote. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That’s a loss of intimacy. Because you flatten the world to politics, which is a binary frame. And then you’ve found everybody that way, instead of binding them through other things. And this is that flattening of identity at the same time. You get this flattening. So now we’re in re-enchantment mode. Peterson, you want to think about it this way. Peterson’s the first Wingardium Levioso person to try and re-enchant secularism. That’s one way to look at it. I don’t like that first. I don’t like that frame. I’m not endorsing this frame at all. I’m saying, if that helps you understand, it’s a good way to understand it. It is a good way to understand. It’s a bad frame to use. It’s a good way to start to understand what he did. So now, it’s like, okay, there’s more to life than me being an individual by myself and the world kind of impinging upon me. I can take responsibility by cleaning my room. And oh, that gives me a great deal of influence and control. And oh, just because I have influence doesn’t mean people are going to be happy that I’ve made the world a better place, that I’ve cleaned my room. Oh, influence is not this one way good thing. Oh, the world is complex. Yeah. And then it’s like, okay, well, and this is where I think he lacks. This is the stuff, I mean, even, Pastor Paul Vanderpleis talked about this at least three times. And this is sort of what I harp on him about. Peterson leaves you off at a certain place, and that’s it. Like, he doesn’t go any further. And that place is roughly the place of responsibility for things outside of yourself. In other words, he tells you about the hierarchy, but he doesn’t tell you what it should be. He doesn’t tell you what your role is. He just says there is a hierarchy. Well, that’s great. That’s great. That’s useful. That’s first level enchantment for sure. Now we need to engage with what is the hierarchy? What is our role in the hierarchy? And how do we change that role? If we want to, and if we can we? Can we? Can I lead the world? You know, like, I don’t know. Look, I could make arguments either way. That’s not the issue. The issue, because just because you can, now you have to answer the should question, right? This is, it gets complex. And then if I did that, what would the cost be to me? Because leadership is a cost. The reason people don’t want to lead is because it’s a cost. And you hear, Peugeot does the best job of talking about this. And it’s not, it’s very subtle. You have to listen closely. I could do that, but I have a family. My wife wouldn’t like it. And you know, Vanu Klay says that too sometimes. Oh, my wife. Oh, my kids. Oh, I’d have to, you know, oh, I’m unavailable. Oh, I couldn’t also do my YouTube channel. Yeah. And his church. His church too. Yes. Yes. Yep. Good call, Alex. His church too. Right. Right. There’s all sorts of sacrifices he’d have to make to be more of a leader, which is very interesting. So he senses that, but he doesn’t talk about it. Peterson doesn’t talk about it. Peterson doesn’t talk about the sacrifice he’s making. Right. He does talk about, oh, I’m traveling and I’m lucky I get to travel with my wife and I have these friends and if anybody causes trouble, they got to go right away. You don’t want anybody to cause trouble. He said that in the Oliver Anthony conversation. I haven’t listened to the whole thing, but you know, the first first, you know, I don’t know, 30 minutes or something I’ve listened to. And he says that. Right. But he’s not talking about the implications of that. And look, I feel I feel obligated to address two things. First, Anselman. Mark on fire. I thought he didn’t doesn’t smoke. Yeah, I don’t drink either. And Ethan, Elizabeth, shouldn’t you be packing? I know I’ve already I’m ready to go. Ethan, aren’t you impressed? I’ve even got my Italian dress ready. Are you leaving? Are you going to Italy? I’m leaving for Sicily. Yeah. So I’m really sad, Mark, because I won’t be able to listen to your live stream because it’s going to be six hours ahead. And so what am I going to do? It’s going to be the middle of the night. Well, some people stay up. Just saying. Oh, my gosh. Yeah, but I won’t be able to talk for sure because then the lady with whom I stay will hear me going on and on about like hierarchy and responsibility and blow your nose and all sorts of crazy things. And she won’t know what to do. And it’s scary. It’ll be frightening even for Sicily. They don’t need that. They know it. They know it in their bones. Yeah, yeah. We have to discuss it with poor propositions because propositions are a terrible way to communicate. We have no choice. It’s just awful. The state we put ourselves in in the age of gnosis. That’s brilliant. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just go write your freaking book. Forget the sub step. You and the book. Mark’s going to write a great book, everybody, just so you know. I’d have to write the sub step. I’m going to take in that. I’ve practiced enough to write a book. There you go. You’re going to do it. There you go. All right. Two in. Come on, Jesse and Alex. We’d like to hear you take a stand. Votes? Can you get a majority vote? What’s it about? What’s the book about? Is it the gnosis? Well, I don’t know what the book would be about. The sub step would be about the age of gnosis and the intimacy crisis. It’s just that Mark has all these really short pithy brilliant insights. Yeah, but a book has to be a book has to be like very well thought out to make like one particular point, I think, for several. That’s why we want to practice with the sub step. That would be the that would be the theory behind that. Oh, God. OK, perhaps. Sally, you know, that’s a good part of the process. Let’s see, Sally, you’re responsible to generate things or to help other generate things. Oh, we’re we’re harkening back to previous live streams. Are we, Sally? Then you’re responsible to care for them. Right. Cultivation. Yeah, that was in the generative generation. You need to see that. I like that generation and cultivation. There’s a chapter title now that’s chapter three, Mark, just in case you didn’t know. That’s why I write the book. No, no, because you’re brilliant. You’re just so brilliant. It’s too much for me. So what was that generation and cultivation? And then yeah. And you know, it’s your name, Dali. I can’t see you very I can’t see your name. Yes, Dali. Well, do you know Sally, Joe, because she’s going to illustrate Mark’s book, by the way. And that’ll be I don’t know. Oh, she’s a beauty that I’m looking forward to it. I really am. Yeah, definitely. Show some Sally Joe’s wonderful illustrations. What? Wow. That’s amazing. You haven’t seen this? Oh, she’s got a whole. Oh, my God. Right here. Wow. She has this wonderful illustration of the masculine and the feminine Dali, and it’s absolutely, eternally perfect. And I’m sorry, I use the word with caution, but it’s true. We’ve got to put that up to. All right. Give me a second. I’ll put. I’ll put. I wanted to check that out as well. I really love odds and creativity. I’ve got that side of me. Yeah, I read that book on Sally Joe’s channel. I did a whole video for her of me reading that book. Okay, I’m going to go. Well, what’s the channel called? Are you able to tell us Sally Joe Cooper or Sally Joe Cooper? You’ll find it if you if you look first. I’ll I’ll post a link. Give me a second to find. I don’t know. I’ll post a link. Tell me Sally Joe Cooper or whatever. Is that what you said? All this link stuff. That’s not that’s like artificial link. It’s like artificial intelligence. Just tell me. Use your words. Sing. Make a poem, Mark. Make a poem. Start your book with a poem. And then Jesse can do us do some singing. Oh, my gosh. You know what you can have? You know how the kids have those songs in their little books and you just have to pull something or push something. We can have Jesse doing some some music here there and there. Alex, I don’t know what your thing is. Whatever you might want to do. Is that what we do? Jesse’s the music guy. Is he introducing children to Nietzsche? Oh, that’s cool. Generation. That sounds insane. No, no, everybody’s saying that’s what I’m up. Oh, yeah. I mean, probably not any more insane than some stuff that’s well, in case we haven’t noticed, we’re all insane. That’s why we need a community and connection. Right, Mark? That’s right. Well, you need the distributed. We outsource our sanity. Right. So you need that distributed cognition. I like distributed cognition as a who made that term up? I don’t know who made it up originally. Verveckis talked about it, but it’s not his originally. Are you sure? I am positive. Positive. Oh, that’s scary. I just don’t remember his reference. And then Jesse can have like you can have a whole chapter on traditions and folk dances and the maple and all of that. And Jesse can do all of that. Traditions and folk dances. Yeah. And the maple. Come on. That’s a that’s a song man. Tradition, folk dances and the maple. That sounds like a burn power thing. I’ll let burn power take the focal. That’s so true. Well said. Oh, who wants to explain what depth is? What depth is? Yeah, because the third dimension. I don’t know. It’s I think that’s why am I reverberating? Oh, that’s Alex. Try again. Oh, dear. McGilchrist is going on and on about depth and and and he that’s vertical causality. Is it space? Is it silence? I’m sorry, but I have to go back to that. Is it space? It’s not space. Space. No context. You only see that. Oh, that’s true. You only see depth. Yeah, that’s a good way to that’s a good way to put it, Jesse. Yeah. Wow. Ocean floor, right? You don’t know it’s the. The ocean floor is where the ocean falls. Starts relative from where the where the beach starts or when the end of the land starts. So you might think you’re on the ocean floor when you just go into the water and the beach and the floor changes, the depth changes because you get further and further away from your original context. Keep going. So you how does that tie in with settled bodies and distance? Did you guys see that you’re talking about that? Have you heard about this thing called spirituality? Like if you’re not in tune with a purpose with a place in being, of course, you’re not going to be connected to a sense of spirit or telos. So, so that’s so is depth what Mark’s talking about. Is that what you’re talking about? The flatness means lack of depth. I don’t know. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Is that. It’s the lack of vertical causality. And what that means is that you’re stuck on a flat plane. Right. You’re actually stuck. Now, when you’re stuck on a flat plane, you can’t have things in common because you’re here and I’m here. And there’s we’re not looking up. You can’t see up because it’s not available to us. Well, I don’t even know if you exist at that point. I’m sorry. I hate to go that far. And that’s the neoplatonism. Like individuals. The only way I can exist in that frame is I’m part of you. Yeah. Whatever that means. That’s right. Exactly. Whatever that means. And that is the problem. And that is where we find ourselves. And it’s not a very pretty place. I agree. But wait, Jesse, how does context and fractal do something on that context and the fractality? Hold on. I want to show this is Danny. This is the exemplification of vertical causality right here. Since you brought it up earlier. It took me a while to find it because I’m disorganized at the moment. So you can see that there’s the horizontal. The man and the woman have their, you know, they have their arms together. Right. And then there’s the vertical causality is right there. The vertical causality for the man is the thing that he builds to make the woman his height. He’s not his height unless she’s standing on the thing that he built. And the thing that she’s pointing to that he can’t see, she can’t see what he’s doing for her. And he can’t see what she’s pointing out, which is the thing higher. The star. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But why are you why do you have to call that vertical causality? Why can’t you just call it asymmetrical love? I don’t know that it’s not both. But why do you have to call it this vertical causality? That’s what I don’t understand. I get why up and down or left hemisphere. They don’t really exist. They’re false categories, I think. I agree. I mean it deeply, actually. I think they’re false. I think it’s false categorization that we use constantly with this up and down. I don’t think and it’s very it’s abstract and it’s useful only in a distinct little situation. So that’s why I don’t understand vertical causality. I don’t get the vertical. And I think it’s the thing that lifts you off the plane and allows you to go up and down above and below the plane. That’s the vertical causality. But OK, why does it have to be up and down vertical? Why can’t it just be depth? Because you can have depth on the plane, right? You can go this way and that way. Wait, wait, say that again. You can have depth on a plane, right? Along the same. Yeah, you can. No, there’s no way that you can have depth. You do. Because the z-axis is depth. But the z-axis is straight through the middle. Well, it’s pretty skinny depth. It is. Well, that’s the problem. Are we going to call skinny depth? Depth or can we just call it skinny? You can call it whatever you want. I’m actually being serious. I think there’s a lot of problems with this. Sorry. You need that shallow but long, short but deep. You need those extra dimensions in order to navigate. In order to navigate, but also to see pitfalls and to pattern match, right? Because if you think, oh, it’s just a little puddle and you don’t realize it’s a manhole, right? If you don’t pattern detect, you’ll get yourself into all sorts of troubles. Or if you don’t realize, oh, it’s short and shallow, maybe I can go prawn fishing because that’s the best time to go prawn fishing is actually when the water’s receded that way. So you need to have some extra context, essentially. Oh, in order to see? Right. Well, in order to proceed in this, it’s not to see, it’s to discern. Okay. That’s how you see. The thing in Flatland that I found fascinating is what they do. I forget who wrote Flatland. It’s been too long. What they do is they say, imagine a piece of paper. And then you imagine there’s little guys living on the piece of paper, right? Little creatures. But they’re two-dimensional creatures. They’re flat. That’s why it’s Flatland. And then they say, imagine somebody pokes a pen or a pencil through the paper. Your perspective as a two-dimensional creature is a flat line is coming straight at you. Right. That’s all you can see. So you have lost discernment. It’s not that you’ve lost sight. You’ve lost discernment. That’s why you need vertical causality to Jesse’s point, because you need all of those ways of understanding. And that means you need navigation. Direction won’t work. Not that you don’t need direction. Direction is not important that you can throw out direction. Direction alone won’t work. What do you mean by navigation in that sense? Well, navigation is all about this. More props. Okay. You have a compass. And I do. I have a compass right here. Here’s my compass. Cool. It is a compass. Right. It functions. Ah, it doesn’t open easily, though. I don’t know why. Did I screw up? I screwed something up. So I have a compass. And what does a compass tell you? A compass tells you direction. Right. So if you look at this compass, it’s perfectly capable of telling you direction. Interestingly, people don’t notice about compasses. You kind of have to hold a compass like this on the horizontal. There are exceptions. They have round compasses. They’re used on boats. They’re used on boats. Navigation. Right. But the thing that makes this compass work are these two things here. Okay? This is what’s called an orienteering compass. Because it allows you to orient against your goal. So you can say, if I point the compass, say this way, I can go, all right, north is that way. If there’s a mountain directly to the north of me and there’s a valley between me and the mountain, I can’t use this compass to get there without using this and this. And a map. By the way, you also need a map. When you have a map and this and this, now you don’t actually even need the distance. You need the distance to predict how long it will take. You don’t need the distance to get to the mountain. What you do is you turn the compass, you sight along something, right? You go that far to that marker when you’re, say, able to cross the valley. You know approximately how far you’ve gone and you know what angle off the mountain you traveled. And you’re then able to use a bit of math to calculate where to go next to get to that mountain. That’s orienteering. So one direction ain’t going to cut it. And direction alone isn’t going to cut it. You can’t reduce that navigation to the mountain to a set of directions. Right. You have to have distance and you have to have the angles between the directions in order to get to the mountain. There’s no other way to do it. That’s navigation. That’s one form of navigation. There are others, but basically navigation is wrapped up in direction plus time, right? Plus distance, right? Plus angle. You need all of those components. You probably need more components than that, but you need at least those four components. In other words, you can’t just say, you know what I’m going to do? I’m going to avoid evil and I’ll be fine in my life. No. Your life is about orientation. It’s about navigation. You can’t just avoid evil and be fine. First of all, the world is changing and you’re changing independently. You know, not entirely independently, but independently. And that’s the problem. Well said. Okay. That was good. Yeah. Okay. So that’s why you and to get to know about the mountain and the valley, you need the vertical. Right? I need to avoid the valley to get to the mountain. That’s the vertical because they’re up and down from you. You need to be able to measure all that. Yeah, not fond of the term. I’m not fond of vertical or actually I don’t really like hierarchy either. I think it’s really problematic. Up and down are not false categories. You read Dante, you know this Elizabeth. Even when I were continually arguing about this. I’m so sorry. Thank you for saying you don’t like the word hierarchy. I have been wanting to say that for so long. Thank you so much. That’s liberation for me. Yeah. I don’t like it either. Yeah. What are you seeing with the word then? What are you, what are you associating it with? Well, I can’t really associate it with anything. To me, it’s like it’s an old collapsible kind of weird. I just don’t, yeah, it’s just a useless word as well. And it’s overused and nobody really goes into what does that mean? I agree. What are the examples? How realistic is it really? And then like a newer word or a word that I’ve sort of been like thinking of. My brain is trying to replace the word hierarchy with continuum. Just to sort of try and see if I do that, what would then come from. Exactly. That’s exactly my point too. And I think that’s, I think that’s exactly right. The continuum doesn’t, is an equality word. Right. So Sally Jo, up is closer to the highest good and down is closer to the lowest evil. Right. It’s not abstract at all. Right. And then Sally says, just because they are also space doesn’t make them abstract necessarily. Oh, keep going, Sally. What do you mean? Let’s see. The problem occurs when you ask, this is Benjamin Franklin. The problem occurs when you ask, is it relative to sea level or something else? No, that’s not really a problem. There has to be a reference point. Well, yeah, there are several reference points. Did you create an arbitrary reference point? Why not another point? Yeah, well, don’t be a leftist. You won’t create arbitrary things. Okay. Where is Sally going with that, please? Because that’s really interesting what she said. She hasn’t actually talked more about it yet. Oh, okay. Anselman, Edwin Abbott, Googled it. I don’t know where he is with that. Look, uh-oh, uh-oh, you got your wish now, Elizabeth. Oh, help. Oh, good. I’m not really getting it. I thought it was Ethan. I was getting worried. Okay. I’m trying to be more worried. It’s me. I’m here to talk about hierarchy. Oh, okay, good. Yeah, yeah, so, kind of pretty sure. Hierarchy is the tree, also true. Go ahead, Sally, tell us. This just, hierarchy just kicks my ass because people got some hierarchy trauma. To be able to have hierarchy is the same as to be able to judge. You’re going to have a hierarchy if you’re just not, hierarchy is not the same as tyranny, just like authority is not the same as tyrant. So, let me think of something really hippie and apply hierarchy to it. Avocado toast, man. You get a raw avocado that is not ripe, that is just little chunks of clump, and you put that down and you put that down on some Wonder Bread. And that’s one avocado toast. And then you got some moderate, like that kind of hard, healthy bread, and you got a slightly riper avocado, and maybe you put some butter with it, and that’s another avocado toast. And then, and then, you got some homemade sourdough with a perfectly ripe avocado, and melted butter, and sea salt. Those are your three options here. Is there no hierarchy? There’s a, that’s, you’re talking about a hierarchy of value here. Yes, yes, because hierarchy is not arbitrary. Hierarchy is not valueless. It is not without the discernment of value. That is tyranny. You have a tyranny of freaking Wonder Bread toast. That’s tyranny. That’s what they’re feeding the school children. Hyper hierarchy is always wrapped up in value. Yes, yes, it’s always in value. It’s intrinsic value. Well, then that’s what needs to be freaking said, instead of people just throwing out this hierarchy. I’m sorry, no, no, it’s really important. I’m here, and I’m here. That’s what I’m doing, Elizabeth. Like, this is what we’ve done to art. We have made art bereft, bereft of intrinsic value and bereft of story, and it is obscured hierarchy. And when you let people come in with their scribbles, they’d be like, oh, it’s so wonderful. You’re sharing your soul. And they didn’t put time, effort, or any logical standards to the appeal of their work. And I’m not saying you can’t have an elegant watercolor, but an elegant watercolor is not the same as Da Vinci. It’s just not. It’s just not. It’s not an oil painting. It’s not a gold work. There is a difference to intrinsic value because one thing is harder than the other. And when you have that in leadership, some leaders are good leaders, and they lead by pushing the forces of horror out of the way before them and leaving a gap for the weaker to follow. While pushing the forces of horror, write it down. That’s great. Because you don’t lead by pushing weak people to be crushed before you. Our current leadership pushes weak people to be crushed before them. Well said. Well said. Out of the way. And this is my defense of hierarchy because it just grates me. And I have weird overlaps because I did do art school after the military. And to see the complete value of proper hierarchy when it did work, and there are times it doesn’t work, but when it did work, and then to see people just like they don’t understand the difference between hierarchy and tyranny or leadership and tyranny. And it just it crushes me a little bit because those are the beautiful things. I mean, we can’t have excellence. I want excellence, man. That’s the flattening of the world. That’s not my work, that’s death. But why? Someone robbed that term from us. Someone took a valuable thing that showed us how to find excellence, and they robbed us and they stabbed it, burning ember in our eye, and made us blind to beauty. And I want it. I want it back. That’s what I’m telling Gerrida. Yeah, but sorry for this smudgy phone. And I didn’t know I would get to get on. My little guy fell asleep again. So but I still I’m really concerned about it because I’ve ever since Peterson started talking about hierarchy way back and whenever it was 2017, I have trouble with the word and he was using it inappropriately. And I don’t know why to me, Sally, what you’re talking about is the ontological grounding of the ontological primary nature of value is what you’re talking about. And I don’t understand how that’s different than death. I’m going to make a big jump here. Oh, good. Okay. I could get I could be wrong because I’m but I’m trying to listen to my gut. I think your allergic reaction to hierarchy is the same allergic reaction that I used to have to submission. Mark just says the submission word and I could not understand it until one day, Mark said, well, I submit to listen to you all the time. And then I’m like, why the hell haven’t you used yourself as the example? Because that’s what I could. So like in this group, obviously, Mark is the leader. This doesn’t work unless Mark is here because we needed someone who had the force of I don’t know what it is in this case, words, audacity, nothing to lose time effort. We needed somebody who had the force to lead the group. And that puts him at the top of the hierarchy. I don’t think it. Well, I don’t know. I like I don’t see the hierarchy in that. I definitely don’t agree with that one because there is docracy. All we serve the servants. Okay. So you don’t see the hierarchy. That’s not a hierarchy. The leader is the is the is the is the one. It’s the one who can bend the lowest. That’s why it’s such a sacrifice. You want that proper. That’s proper leadership and proper hierarchy. Yeah, yeah. You know, leadership not tyranny, not tyranny, because the thing is, like, I can’t leave this. I don’t have the time. I can’t do it. I don’t have the experience. I can’t do it. I don’t have the social whatever, whatever it is to organize the group. It was in the military. She actually has better leadership skills than I do for some things. Well, for some things, but but not for this, because I don’t have the ability to do it. Like, would you could you lead this? Would you lead this? Who are you talking to? You. Oh, I don’t know. I never thought about it. I have to think about it. Well, okay. But the thing is, right now, the hierarchy stands really valid. I just don’t see it as a hierarchy. That’s all. I still wouldn’t use that word because hierarchy. If you look up the I mean, if we’re talking about the same word, the hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. I don’t know. Yeah. Well, and actually, it’s weird that you brought up ontology because ontology is a statement of hierarchy. That’s actually what an ontology is. Well, it is actually. You’re right. You’re right. All ontologies are hierarchies. Yeah, they are. You were right. You’re right. I think there’s a lot of things that are right. You’re right. We’ve got to use the word preference. We all have preferences. In order to have a preference, you need to have discernment. You need to have judgment. You need to have a pattern. You need to have an experience. And you need to have an ideal in mind. Right. Right. Once you have all those things, you’ll therefore have a hierarchy, a preference in mind of how to navigate through those things. You know, I like crunchy peanut butter and smooth, so I go to the shops and I buy crunchy peanut butter to continue Sally Jones. The virtues and the vices that I’ve been working on, those are maximizing and embodying the scale between the hierarchy. That’s my entire goal. Because without being able to see the virtue or the vice, everything is gray mud. Right. Well, I think that’s the difference. I want to sort of touch on this because, and here’s Chris Petcow, our wonderful friend, hierarchy makes people in liberal society fundamentally insecure. It does if you want equality doctrine. And to address sort of Benjamin Franklin, as much as I hate to do it, look, if you have an unhealthy relationship with the leadership, with leadership, then it’s only tyranny. If you’re flat in the world, leadership doesn’t exist. Only tyranny exists. Right. And that’s not to say that all leaders are good or that all good leaders are good in the same way because life is complex, not complicated. Complicated implies you can understand it using rationality. No, it’s complex in a way that you can’t understand because you’re a muppet. Right. That means that it’s also not relative because as Sally so eloquently pointed out, I’m so proud of you, Sally. You can actually talk to people now. It’s wonderful. Ideal, ideal is important too. Right. And Jesse said it too. These ideals are important. It’s not an arbitrary thing. Right. You have to have these ideals. They have to be there. You can’t say all art is equal. You can’t say the painting, the watercolor that you did is as good as Da Vinci. It’s not going to be the best watercolor in the world and it’s still not going to be as good as Da Vinci oil painting. That’s never going to happen. And that’s okay. There’s nothing wrong with that. You’re still placed within the hierarchy. The thing that people seem to be upset about is that they’re not at the top. Well, maybe you shouldn’t be at the top. Maybe Oliver Anthony should not try to lead a ministry with his music. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not saying it’s not a good idea. I’m saying it’s not a good idea for him to try it. And I’m saying that as much for him as I am for everybody who would attend. Yeah, I just don’t. I think reality is so complex. That’s also, I still think that we don’t understand what the patterning is. And so I have to say I like the word continuing better. Just intuitively I like that word better. Because it seems to me that it’s so over dimensional reality and the creative part that we play interacting with it, which creates everything. It just seems to me that we’re way off in terms of how we’re seeing everything. That’s all. So that’s just my own personal perspective. I’m just being honest about it because I can hear what you’re all saying, but I can’t relate to it actually. Just saying. It’s cool. You could all be totally right, but the way I see things, I see things as much more as reflective and creative in the space between. When you say continuum, do you see the figure eight? It was Dali’s word. Yeah. Do you see the figure eight when you say continuum? And if I could just add or sort of maybe recap, is that I’m the expert in it, but I’ve been irritated with the word hierarchy and where it’s been used and how it’s been used. And in a way, it’s sort of been like jagging my thinking. So I got the idea and I like the word hierarchy and where that was used. And I like the word hierarchy and where that was mentioned. And I thought, what if I try and see from a different lens by sort of taking the word continuum and the concept of it and placing it in certain places where the word hierarchy is used. Just to see, just to find out where’s the difference, where’s the missing link, just to try and understand. So I’m not trying to declare something like that. I was just sharing sort of a line of thought, I suppose. But I think, yeah, it’s maybe, it’s also maybe halfway in the realm of I can’t explain. At least not yet. And it could also be perhaps that maybe I just am able to see the same thing you see, but just from a different, like if I take continuum and that’s a certain way of seeing something and you take hierarchy and you see it, but you’re both looking at the same thing. I don’t know how to describe it. I don’t know, maybe it’s to do with the brain and life experience or where you are. I don’t know, just, but it’s to try and understand the other. It’s not to try and establish something, so yeah, it’s to try and see the other side of things. That to me is the allergy to hierarchy. You should try to establish something. You should be generative. You should say, all right, we have an engagement with something and I need to know where I fit in. Because hierarchy isn’t bad. Hierarchy gives you a place to fit in. And a place to fit in is technically intimacy. You can’t have intimacy if you don’t know where you are in a hierarchy. It’s not possible. It’s not possible. You reduce the world to you and not you. You don’t have a choice. Without a hierarchy, the world has to be reduced to you and not you because it’s flat. So that’s the danger. And I’m not saying that you can’t just substitute the word continuum and you have the right concept. You might. I don’t know. I’m not trying to force you to use the word hierarchy. I’m just saying the reason why this is important is because it puts you in relation to the things around you. And that’s part of being able to co-manifest meaning, is to know where you are in relation to the other things. It’s not relative because there’s an ideal. Right? But you’re relative within the hierarchy. And that doesn’t mean you can’t move. You might move down and that would suck. But it’s important that you know where you are so that you can speak up because that was part of Sally Jo’s problem. She didn’t understand. To some extent, her ignorance helped her. She didn’t understand that Manuel wasn’t going to understand certain things or that Marc had no idea what the hell she was talking about. And we just sort of clather on until finally she figured out something about what the hell she was saying. She didn’t understand any of that. Right? And that worked to her advantage because we didn’t stop her from talking. We’re not tyrannical, contrary to what people think. Even Manuel is not tyrannical at all. He’ll let you talk for a very long time, longer than I will. I’ll shut you up long before Manuel will. Right? So that’s important. She kind of figured out where she fit in and now she can speak up. So, and I have an extreme comfort with hierarchy just from my time in the army because when a hierarchy is working properly, it’s defending the Lord. The stronger and the more powerful are by intention defending the lower. And to have no hierarchy is very scary and exhausting. And it’s actually one of the major reasons service members kill themselves when they leave the service because you had this really extensive framework and you knew how you fit into your little microcosm society of being in the service. And you knew if, hey, if I’m an E5, then I go to the E6. And if I’m an E4, I go to the E5 and so on and so on and so on and so on. And I see… Same thing with prisoners, by the way. Same thing with prisoners in convicts. Yes, a huge amount of overlap between military and prisoner experience. But, and then I would see the absence of that in the world and I saw suffering. And then I would see hatred for the thing that could alleviate suffering. And so confusing. And I actually see the hierarchy established within the Catholic Church. I developed a way bigger comprehension and appreciation for the idea that you should have a parish and then you should have a priest and that priest should have a bishop and that bishop should, cardinal and so on. Because that’s nice. Because then you actually know who to go to. And then, but I have to go back. And this is just one of those things. And like, if we have to just move on and I have to just let it go, I can do that. But I want to ask, because I get this about the submission where like, do you just reflexively hear injustice when you hear hierarchy? Well, that’s a good question, I think. Well, definitely a good one to ponder on. Yeah, I don’t think so necessarily. But then again, I feel like I should think about that because it’s a good question. I think I… It’s a very good question. That’s what I think. I think it’s a good question. I think I heard when I heard submission for a long time. Interesting. And I still kind of get pissy about it. And I don’t know that it’s reasonable because every word is a tool. And to have tools taken away by an agenda that I don’t even understand from ideas that aren’t even mine, I don’t want that. It’s frustrating. Well, and it’s interesting that you’re talking about a very, very, very, very, very It’s frustrating. Well, and it’s worth talking about the other side of hierarchy too, Sally, which, you know, I mean, it didn’t come out, which is, yeah, you’re an E4 and you have a certain job description in the military. You know what you’re responsible for. And if anything goes wrong that you’re not responsible for, you don’t have to worry about that because it’s not yours. In the real world, that is much less clear. It is much less clear because people will blame you for things that you weren’t even there for. We’ve got, you know, not to bring up anything too topical, political, but it’s here and it’s now and it’s linked. We’ve got somebody being accused of being involved in a set of alleged riots or whatever going to jail who wasn’t even there. And I’m not saying that’s always wrong, but I’m saying like, boy, there’s a big debate about that now. Like if this guy wasn’t there and there’s no evidence that he incited anybody to go to that event and cause whatever problems imaginary people think happened because they’re crazy, that’s a problem. That can’t happen in the military or at least not in the same way. It would be nice if he had a captain to appeal to and wouldn’t it be nice if that captain had a colonel to get help from? And at the very end, wouldn’t it be nice if that captain and colonel had a five-star general to pull up for their E4 who was not there? Right. That’s right. There’s a lot of protection you get by being in the hierarchy. This is what I mean by intimacy. It goes both ways. Yes, now you have a bunch of responsibilities and maybe you’d rather be drawing. But, but because I know Sally would already know this, but at least you knew when you could draw and when you couldn’t and you had something to do during the day that you had to do. And if something went wrong that wasn’t within your job description, you didn’t have to worry about it. You didn’t have to worry about it. It’s not yours. I mean, there’s lots of advantages to being coddled by the hierarchy. It doesn’t just protect you in the way of like, oh, people above you are going to shield you from things. That also, but also it protects you because you know what to do. And maybe it infantilizes you a little too much. That’s why people get out into the real world. They’re like, ah! It cripples you a little bit. Your hierarchy is too strong. And a lot of times the military is too strong. It cripples you a little bit because there is stuff that you’re being shielded from so you can do something else. And, you know, managing your electric bill and your cell phone bill aren’t necessarily one of them. So, yeah, it’s not all upsides. It’s deep. Well, I want to read this from Anselman. We used to talk of public servants and civil servants. Lately, there seems to be a move away from public authorities being servants of the people. Absolutely. That already happened, right? And the big disturbing thing for me is, especially in the U.S., and I see this a lot now, a lot of people are talking about taxes or theft. When you think taxation is theft, what that means is that you feel you’re not getting your services, right? That you’re paying for. That’s what you feel like. You’re not getting services that you’re paying for. And fair enough. But the question is, why do you feel that way? Because maybe that’s right. Maybe the government is no longer serving you using your resources because that’s what money is. Money is the expression of your resources that you’ve given to them. That’s a problem. That’s a big problem if people feel that way. Justified or unjustified, I don’t want to make a judgment about that. I don’t have to. I’m just saying when you’re at that point and we might be close to that point or at that point, that’s a problem. It’s a big problem. French Revolution, man. It’s definitely, yeah. Well, if you haven’t seen my talk with Adam, man, that freaking monarchy talk is great. French Revolution. Don’t forget, it’s not the French Revolution, it’s French Revolution. There’s at least one. Yeah. Well, they’re on their fifth republic. Gavin Reichart. I can’t pronounce your name. I suck at pronunciation. Mark, would you say that intimacy is the same as loving charitable relationship? No, I would not. Intimacy is much more complex than say love, which is just a throwaway word at this point, and charity. Charity is just not understood by anybody. If you want to try to learn charity, you kind of have to use a much larger framework, the one I’m familiar with that works really well, and I don’t even think the Orthodox have a way to do it, is the Catholic idea of charity because it’s very rich. And the problem with love is that love is a meaningless word. Verbeke points this out. We use love seven different ways to Sunday. Just to be fair, Mark, we have to point out your allergy word might be love then because we have to be fair. I love stalling, Joe. I’m with Verbeke on the whole love thing. I thought his talk on love was fantastic. I don’t think that VanderKlay necessarily disagrees either, which, you know, you can go either way on that. Sometimes I want to strangle Pastor Paul, and sometimes he’s dead on. Yeah, I mean, look, intimacy is the quality of a relationship. That’s what intimacy is. And it’s important to understand quality and to understand relationship and to put those two together such that you understand what’s going on in the world and how you’re connected to it. And you can’t have intimacy or even proper relationship at all. Forget about intimacy if you’re an individual. When you make the statement of being an individual, you are identifying against the rest of the world that you are embedded in, all of nature that is there with you and all the other people in the world. Don’t try to be an individual. Don’t do that. Don’t do that to yourself and don’t do that to the people around you. Don’t do that to nature. Don’t do it. Well, you don’t exist then. So what you’re you’re just basically nihilistic. If you think you’re going to be an individual, you’re a nihilistic. Here’s the worst part, Elizabeth. See, that is correct. Except it takes a long time to get there. And some of us also trust. You will eventually get to nihilism if you try to be an individual. Now, will you die of old age first? You might. It’s possible. Different people move at different rates. Right. Entropy, all this. There’s all kinds of props you can use to stave off the individualism nihilism that that can happen. But eventually you’re going to get there. And a lot of people get there a lot quicker than you think. You can use some great artwork to get there fast. Some interesting movies and stuff like that. Yeah, no kidding. A few books here and there. Read some French existentialists. You’ll be there faster than you can say, Jack Robinson. Seriously. Yeah, well, they were down there fast. The French existentialists were the ones that sort of invented that quick road to nihilism. The slip the slip and slide to nihilism. Right. Chris, Chris, modernity tries to make us all so there can be no error. Yeah. The thing about nihilism, too, is that sometimes, though, I find their art is pretty fantastic. That they make and sometimes weirdly beautiful. But they don’t understand it. Yeah, we’re going to Barkley for the things that you look at and they you get the dopamine hit from looking at them, but they ain’t good for you. Right. Well said, Sally Jo. Technically, it’s a spectacle. If you want to think about where the world shifted, it’s the spectacles is basically over over dramatized over preferred. That’s the word I want to be using. Right. Then the story. Right. So it’s the giant presentation of everything. Right. So one thing I wanted to get us back to is you reflect that which you face towards. Right. So if you do not have a good ideal, a good hierarchy, a good community, you will not reflect that back into the world. You have no tradition. You won’t reflect a tradition. You have no religion. You won’t reflect it. Right. Our bodies, technically, if you want to get a little bit esoteric, our bodies are actually water, mostly speaking. Right. So we are actually reflecting agents in some capacity. Yeah, we’re mirrors. There’s no question. A little bit esoteric, but there you go. There’s Jesse’s esoteric drop today. No, we’re ugly. We change the buildings. We change buildings, stop reflecting a proper sense of character. We move from personality. We move from character to personality. Right. And so that’s when when the buildings change, we did no longer have that sense of character. Because when you look at Big Ben, a Big Ben would reflect back and you would say, yes, that is the proper character. That represents the British London image. Right. When you look at New York, the Cosmic Poulsen thing, that’s what reflected back into the people and the culture. And that’s where the world shifted there from, you know, from the Victorian to the British. And and you’re you’re absolutely right, Jesse. And it goes you’re talking about the highest features of the city. But I would like to bring that all the way to the lowest. Peterson has this portion of one of his college lectures where he talks about how a restaurant can be heaven or a restaurant can be held. A diner. Yeah. So and so I’ve transmitted them to clean bathrooms save lives. Yeah. So people who do work at public facilities and like gas station, like the lowest of places, it is essential. That even if you are in the lowest of places, everywhere where you can generate and make contact, you’re doing it well, because a person on a bad day, if it’s just one more thing that they have to use a destroyed restroom, you might kill them. And everything matters. And like, and like all the way up and like, yeah, there’s like a sorry state of architecture. But if you’re stuck with sorry architecture, at least clean it and care for it and have it be the nicest sorry architecture you got. Well, then that’s right. That’s the reenchantment. That’s beautiful. Yeah. Well, and and and beautiful. We get fooled by a lot of this stuff, right? Because we don’t we’re not we’re not sort of caring for it. And it’s the caring that we’re missing. And I want to address this. So Gavin, there isn’t a highest quality of a relationship. Okay. Quality, quality doesn’t. No, no, there isn’t one. I’m saying there is doesn’t exist. It’s a silly question. And some at some level, because quality doesn’t exist in the highest lowest. It’s not measurable. And so there’s no highest and lowest like quality just is on the line of vertical causality. It just is. And it’s intuitive. You can’t break it down. You can’t like this is like why poetry often talks about things like love, because you can’t break it down in propositions. It doesn’t work. It’s hit or miss more like. Does that sound right? Quality is hit or miss. Well, I don’t I don’t think it’s hit or miss. I think that quality is something that you feel intuitively. In some sense, trying to speak about quality is a waste of time. You can point to the fact of its existence and I recommend that you do so. Right. But you can’t actually nail it down. It is the thing that cannot be nailed down, especially by propositions, by language. It doesn’t fit within language. Language is not designed. Nor will it ever be designable to express quality in a sufficient fashion. Doesn’t mean you can’t use language to talk about qualities or quality as such. It means that you’re never going to get a satisfactory answer because it’s not actually higher and lower. Right. It’s not actually. Quantifiable. Well, right. Exactly. It’s why we say it’s why we say quality versus quantity every single time. We always say that. And quantity is on the horizontal and quality is on the vertical. And that’s how that’s how it that’s how it works. Also, sorry to see you go, Dali. I hope you’ll come back. Yeah, I really enjoyed listening to her. The thing about quality is when people start talking about, let’s say, what makes a good leader. And I hinted at this earlier. Every leader is not good for the same reasons, even though they are a good leader. Right. What that indicates is that there are different aspects to leadership and that you need some combination of those aspects to be considered a good leader. In some it’s not a quantity, but it might seem like, oh, he has an exceptional skill for lifting people up. Right. Oh, OK. Maybe. Right. But that’s actually a quality of a relationship or type set of relationships that you can have with people that may be different from. You know what other people are capable of. Right. And so this is the issue is that there’s all these qualities is like a web of qualities. Right. And when you have more qualities and you are sort of more in tune with those qualities, probably the best way to say it, then you’re good at something. Right. Could be leadership. It could be, you know, you’re very personable. Right. It could be you’re good at expressing love. Right. However you want to frame that there, Sally, is just to get at you. Right. Those qualities are things that people sense. You can’t measure them. And that’s what provides the intimacy. And that’s why it’s not quantitative. Mark, I need to be a self-obsessed artist for just like one minute. You take that book and unfold it. Now, are you still there? Yes. Show how it’s one page. So I talked a lot about intrinsic value and then I thought about that. And then I’m not strictly pro art snobbery either, because one of the primary ways I saw art as a child was on popcorn tins. And so I purposefully made my artwork on the absolute cheapest reproducible thing I could possibly figure out, which was one printer page. And it’s a slightly glossy printer page. But nonetheless, so I took an application of like a labor intensive high value object and shrunk it down and printed it off in the highest quality it could be as the cheapest thing it could be. And so you can apply high quality to a low intrinsic item as long as you have a willingness to work with that. And it depends entirely what you wanted to do with it. And we wanted to distribute to a lot of people. I mean, but just because I can make a low intrinsic value item does not mean I would say that that is higher than like a book of hours after which it was modeled after. Like obviously a book of hours is higher in the hierarchy and that little paper on one piece is lower in the hierarchy. That does not mean it has no value. It is exactly what it is for to be mass produced, to be used up and consumed and to be looked at it until it is nothing. Like it is meant to be temporal. I enjoy making pieces that are temporal sometimes. So just because it was lower on the hierarchy than a book of hours does not mean it is lesser of value. In fact, that might make it precious because it will dissolve and disintegrate and will not endure the centuries. And I’m done with hierarchy. I can move on. Thank you very much. It also reaches down to the people who don’t have access to that higher thing, the people who don’t have access to look at DaVinci. They don’t have to. They can see this or that. And that was Mark submitting to my Wimps, which I really appreciate. Thank you. Father Eric, tell us about hierarchy. You’re the hierarchy expert here. Yeah. So I conducted a wedding rehearsal tonight. That’s what I was doing before here. I came from the rehearsal dinner and there was a very clear hierarchy at the wedding rehearsal with me on top because I do this all the time. And I actually know how this is supposed to work. And nobody complained about it. And the only thing that really got in the way of the rehearsal was people chattering when they shouldn’t have been. So when hierarchy is right, it’s a perfect thing. How else would they know without somebody authoritative there to tell them this is how this is supposed to work? That’s part of why the hierarchy is useful because it gives you the pattern to follow. And even if like your particular instantiation of the hierarchy, let’s say that this parish priest isn’t really all that good at its job, it’s better than no organization. Right. Right. Well, absolutely. Well, there’s no question on that one, that’s for sure. But I just I always see it as the highest serving the very lowest. That’s what I always think of Christ serving the crippled and the lame and the disabled and the prostitute. That’s how I always see it. So I guess I guess that’s my pattern rather than anything else. That’s a healthy but that’s a healthy hierarchy. There’s nothing wrong with having the ideal in mind. But where are you in that? But that’s what father, well, yeah, that’s more like placement. Isn’t that that’s more like it being in your place to me. Like when Sally was talking, Sally Jo was talking about it seems to me that’s more like being in your place rather than than whatever this word is. But I just I guess I’ll always have trouble with it. No, hierarchy tells you your place. That’s how you find your place. Your place is within the hierarchy. You’re part of it. That’s the important part is like it gives you a place. It gives you a home in the case of a church like the Catholic Church with a big hierarchy and gives you a spiritual home. That’s what they should have talked about at Chino. I suspect they didn’t. But I wasn’t there. Father Eric was. I they did not hold up the Catholic Church as the spiritual home. No, they did not happen. I bet they didn’t hold up anything. I mean, I bet they didn’t talk about hierarchy at all. Oh, did they even talk about embodying the right spirit? I swear I’ll get back to you. You want to solve the Muppet Crisis? You have to embody a spirit that’s not material. For sure. For sure. Spirits. What material spirits are out there? Show me a spirit made of matter. No, but they’re acting as if. Yeah, exactly. Okay. Money. The world moves from money. Corporations are just for profit. It’s like where are you getting this from? Like you crazy. Oh, you know why people voted for this candidate over that candidate? And then they’ll mention something. You know what’s wrong with the world? Because I heard this a lot. Oh, it’s totally nuts. I’m going to strangle Pastor Paul when I see him. He’s reading from this book. And this guy is just he keeps playing both sides. Right? And then he says, well, people use the markets and the state to do Y. And I’m like, dude, which is it? Like, come on, you’ve got to pick one. You can’t tell me the markets and the state are in charge first of all. They can’t be there. They’re not agents in the world. They don’t do anything. Right? And then say, oh, no, no, no, we move that. Who moves who? Which moves which? You know, where are you putting the agency? Keep switching the agency. And then people fall for that because they don’t see what’s going on. Right? Or they don’t discern what they see it. They don’t discern what they see. They don’t discern it. And then they get confused and they think, oh, what a brilliant description of the world. That’s it. It’s the market and the state. That’s what’s causing all the problems in the church. It’s nothing to do with the church or the Protestant rebellion or any of these other things. No, no, no. It’s the market and the state. Clearly. Yeah, that’d be nice. If all of our problems were external. Then we’re not responsible. But that’s that flat world again. Right? Either everything’s part of you and therefore it’s harmonious and happy, or it’s not part of you and it’s the enemy. And it’s precisely the big tent people. It’s precisely the people on the left, the all inclusive people that create that false dichotomy and cause polarization. They’re the ones causing the problems. They’re the ones causing the problems. And some of them aren’t as far along down that road yet, but they’re going to get there. And that’s why Sam Harris is now a Trump derangement syndrome person. He was always going to get there, guys. I saw it near decades ago. Like, I saw it clearly. I never liked the guy for that reason. I knew he was going to kill babies and put them in a basement. It was clear as day. And he’s doubled down on that. He’s tripled down on that. He’s tripled down on that. He’s tripled down on that. He’s tripled down on that. He’s tripled down on that. It was clear as day and he’s doubled down on that. He’s tripled down on that. The guy is insane. He’s not a sane, healthy human. And he never was going to have the ability. Do you remember what he said to trigger that in your mind? Oh, he said, I don’t care. He said, I wouldn’t care if there were dead bodies in Hunter Biden’s dead. The bodies of dead babies or dead children in Hunter Biden’s basement. That’s what he said. That’s what he said. And he said that not just there. That was in the Trigonometry interview. I have a whole video on this. Sam Harris, Highest Value. It’s one of my best watched videos. Oh, no, Highest Value. Wow. No, his highest value is knowledge. And Trump started Trump University. And Trump, if your highest value is knowledge and somebody starts a university, they’re opening a church because your church is the thing that supports your highest value. And for him, even though this is demonstrably false in the most amazing way, too, for him, the fact that Trump University failed in some fashion or ripped people off or whatever it is he thought happened, which didn’t happen, by the way, that was a heretical crime. It was a crime against his religion, effectively. Now, the irony here is that Trump found out that the idiots who were using his name for the university, because Trump sells his name, that’s what he does. Like it, hate it, I don’t care. I’m just talking facts here. He reimbursed them all. They all got reimbursed. Okay? They didn’t lose any money. I’m sorry. Did they lose their time? Absolutely. Were they harmed? Certainly. But like, I’m from Boston. I’ve seen university scams. I’ve seen universities that were scams. I’ve seen colleges that were scams. I know people who worked for colleges that were scams. I know this, experientially. Way worse than anything Trump did, guys. Way worse than anything Trump ever did in his entire life. And that’s still going on. And you think Trump’s bad? This is still going on. This is still going on and you’re not doing anything about it. So don’t come to me and tell me Trump’s bad because of Trump University. That went better than any of these other scams. You don’t care about that issue. You just hate the man. You’re probably a bad person. Yeah, it’s interesting. I was thinking like that latching onto the one argument, you know, maybe he got mad or something, and then he just says something that’s completely wacko. And well, I’m just saying. So more kind of than dead in the basement to me. When I went to Sam Harris talk, very creepy. But when I read what Tam Harris writes, I don’t mind it at all. I don’t mind it at all usually, especially he had a lot of realism on certain overseas parties that I have discontent with. We’ll leave it at that because I need to not get really intense about that. Yes, he had a lot of awareness about certain subjects that I really agreed with him and then I’d read it and I liked it. Listen to him talk. Creepy. No valid reasons that I could come up with just consistently. All right. Well, and look, I mean, you can listen to the trigonometry interview and I think I give the timestamps in my video on it, but you can listen to the interview and you can listen to him afterwards, double down on it. And then you can listen to a month later, bring that example up again, only not with Trump. So he clearly has the dead babies in the basement. Yeah, I was kind of thinking this is probably call it like a muppet answer. Just kind of whatever comes in your mind, you yap out. And that’s supposed to be good enough for the occasion, even though it isn’t something like that. Yeah, no, look, I, I agree. But again, if you listen to the to my video on this, it’s not even that Sam did that. And it’s not even that he defended it afterwards. And it’s not that he defended in the moment. It’s that Sam did that. And then Constantine Kitson, who’s one of the hosts, doubled down on the dead babies in the basement and said, No, no, no, that’s not important. What’s important is that the political system was corrupted by your own admission that the Democrats. This is what this is what this is what Sam Harris said, by the way, I’m not making this up. This is what Sam Harris said. I’m not saying I agree or disagree. The Democrats stole the election from Trump. Stole it. That that was I mean, I don’t know if he used the word stole, but he basically said, Yeah, they they definitely did bad things they shouldn’t have done. And Constantine got upset because for him, politics is his highest value. And that’s why he said F the baby, the dead babies in the basement, because Sam anticipated that that’s what Constantine was upset about. And it wasn’t. And he said, No, F that F the dead babies don’t care about that. I care that you don’t think that the Democrats stealing an election is the most important thing. And so you can see this contrast, this highlight between this guy’s got knowledge is the most important thing. This guy’s got politics is the most important thing. And those values are conflicting in this one story about Trump. And that’s that to me is really important. Like you have to be able to discern that. First of all, nobody cares about the babies. That’s kind of a problem for me. So you’re telling me you know whose basement has dead babies in it and you just don’t care about the dead babies in this person’s basement. What the hell is wrong with you? You’ve got a problem already. Now you can see why. In one, it’s not the same reason. It’s not like, oh, nobody, neither of us care about babies. One of us cares more about politics than life. And the other one of us cares more about knowledge than life. And I’m not judging that. I’m just saying, look at that. That’s kind of important to see that this is happening, that people act this way, that people will fight this way, that people will talk this way. Yeah. Yeah, I kind of ask that because I’m trying to get in the habit of getting more information. I guess a lot of people give their arguments, but they’re very, you know, they say a lot of things and you have to sort of, if you just dig in a little, you can kind of get more into why someone makes that argument. And that gives you some perception. I mean, the reason, my impression of Sam Harris has always been that he’s ultimately a nihilist, right? Because that’s where a flat materialist universe comes from. And maybe this is just my Catholic upbringing, but me just finding that an unacceptable answer. No, that’s just not correct. Yeah, I agree. So it’s just always been like, I can’t go there. Like, I would make a really bad atheist because I think I’d just become a corpse very quickly. I think the default, which is what Mark’s got right, is narcissism has knowledge as the highest value. But in Sam’s particular case, he doesn’t have the highest value because for someone harping on about epistemic, he’s not going to be able to do that. Right. He can’t even see that referencing dead babies is a very, very damning statement on his character. Right. So if you want to have one of that big words of being philosophical, yet you can’t see that you’re referencing the most not trivial crimes ever. Like, there’s a bit of a contradiction there, right? Like, it’s just a notion of, you know, you’re not going to be able to do that. Like, there’s a bit of a contradiction there, right? Like, it’s just a no brainer. If you can’t see that contradiction, then you are the muppet. And then in the case of replying to Alex, you know, Constantine Kirsten, he was the muppet in the room. He fell for, he had lack of discernment in that case. He couldn’t see this and was basically digging his own grave and just let him dig further. Like, there’s your depths. I expect that from him though, honestly. I expect that from Kirsten really. I’m not surprised at that. Well, that’s fair, Alex, but I want to caution you. One of the problems that we have is that people think that they’re going to be able to work this out themselves. OK. And you can see in that instance, and I went over this in my video because it’s in my book. In my video, because it’s important. Ain’t no one talking about the dead babies. There’s all these people that evaluated that and that were pissed off at Kirsten and at Harris for totally different reasons. And the reason why I did the video is because nobody was talking about the only thing that mattered in that conversation. Literally the only thing that mattered, right? Why? Because, and see, this is where it gets tricky, right? So on the one hand, I tell you, don’t try to work this stuff out for yourself. I’m saying that deliberately for a reason. On the other hand, I’m telling you, this is really simple and easy. The problem is, it’s not simple and easy for most people because you’re not starting from and they haven’t built up from the right area. Being is good. OK. And you talk about the destruction of being and you say, oh, dead babies don’t matter, which they both said explicitly. And they both doubled down on it later. I already know you’re a bad person. I don’t need any more information. The too much information gets us caught up in the, like, and this is this is Brett Weinstein. Still today, today on Twitter going, oh, Sam Harris is complicated. You see, Sam Harris is very smart. And I responded to that, actually, because I’m bullshit at him. No, Sam Harris is not smart. OK. You can say whatever you want about Sam Harris. The one thing I can guarantee you, I can guarantee you, knowing very little about Sam Harris, is that he’s an idiot. Guarantee you that. And I know that for certain, for certain, because he cannot start from being as good. He cannot use first principles to get to where he’s at at all. This has been pointed out to him by Peterson multiple and other people multiple times, and he never gets it. It goes right over his head every time. Right. He still thinks that he could write a cookbook that is compelling, as compelling as the Bible. And Peterson kind of laughed at him and said, yeah, go right ahead. And he missed the fact that Peterson was like, yeah, so go do it because you’re a materialist. If you’re really a materialist and you think that you can write a book as popular as the Bible, you should do that. You would be the wealthiest person alive. He doesn’t even try. He doesn’t even try because he made the statement. He knows somewhere in his brain that it’s false. And he knows that he would be the Buddha if he did that. He’d be better than Buddha. Yeah, I agree. Yeah. Oh, I had a thought. I forgot it. Sorry. Yeah, but he’s run to the end of his career. Right. So he’s just going blah, blah, blah. Now, anything to attract attention. That’s what I think. He’s at the end. Nobody’s really listening to him anymore. He’s finished. He’s over. So he’s got to say he’s got to, you know, he’s got to try to come up with some stuff so he can get his job. It’s his brand, man. So he’ll just say any blah, blah. Watch. Watch. He’s stuck in his pattern. Right. Exactly. It took him a long time to get here. It’s a dead end. It’s a dead end. And he’s at the end. And so that’s it. Right. The end of materialism. Yeah. He’s only at the end if he doesn’t get redeemed. If he gets redeemed, it’ll be the biggest story ever. That’s true. That’s true, Sally. He doesn’t want to be redeemed. But he doesn’t want to. He’s not looking. He’s not. He doesn’t want to. He wants to stay in his track. Right. Well, that’s important, though. You can’t be redeemed if you don’t want to be redeemed. Redemption is not something somebody can just hand to you when they feel like it. That’s a very Protestant way of thinking. Paul van der Klay might not be too happy with that. But I mean, Roderick has his hands thumbs up, too. So he agrees. But poor, he’s singing more and more vacuous, right? Sam Harris is just so his emptiness is just, I mean, it’s screaming at everybody. It’s kind of it’s kind of pathetic, actually, more than anything. Anybody anybody who’s like, Well, actually, I don’t have any free will. And free will is just entirely an illusion. You know, and it just sits there and says that like saying, Oh, you know, it’s 73 degrees and slightly humid outside today. It’s like that’s that’s not the appropriate response to a meaningless universe. The appropriate response to a meaningless universe is to freak the heck out because that’s a problem. It’s a problem for everybody you love. Somebody says like, I don’t know, somebody says, I don’t have any free will to say, OK, you want a glass of milk? Uh, I don’t know. Yeah, well, and it came up in that wonderful movie that Jesse and I are maybe someday going to do a thing on the Matrix, right? Like, yeah, oh, yeah, they go into they go into free will all over the Matrix movie, the first one in particular, right? They go over it constantly. Like, there’s at least four or five scenes about this and they talk about it explicitly whether or not we have free will. And if you really want to see free will, like there’s there’s better places to go into to go into that discussion movie wise. Right, Jesse? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Well, yeah, let’s let’s let’s let’s get that. That’s a rabbit hole for rabbit hole, literally speaking. If you want to go free, well, go go have a bit of a dig around with Alice in Wonderland. There you go. That’s that. That’ll that’ll spin you out. Literally. Let me say good night to Gavin. Just because. All right, Jesse, go ahead. I just wanted to sign out with Gavin. Thank you, sir. Glad you were visited. I’m going to go on the second too. Alex, did you want to ask Father Eric before I feel like we’re doing final thoughts? No, I was. Final thoughts on you. Wow. You’re an okay person. No, no, no. You wanted to make sure that you had any questions answered from Father Eric before he went. But I think you’re good. I think you’re good. So go ahead, Jesse. Yeah, I did. What is the Muppet Crust? The Muppet Crust is the lack of discernment, pure and simple. It’s only how you solve it will solve the Muppet Crust is that determines your character. So you can go and chew on that a bit and I’ll see you soon. Wow. Thank you, Jesse. Thank you. Bye, Jesse. Yeah, I do think that’s a good place to wrap it up. So yeah, we’ll do closing comments. Why don’t we go to Sally for the next sort of close out comment? Go ahead, Sally. Anything you want. You know how it works. You’ve watched enough of these. You’ve got to unmute yourself so we can’t hear you. I don’t got anything. I got everything that I was interested in dipping into right now. Well, thank you for showing up. It really helped Elizabeth and Dolly and of course myself. And yeah, I’ll have to review this transcript too, because you said some real whoppers that we’re going to have to incorporate that into. I guess I hope you don’t take it as a personal attack to my having attachment to the hierarchy word, because it’s not meant to be. I’m just trying to pull some of these things out. And I’m as much pointing the finger at my prior self as anyone else when trying to unravel those kind of things. And I think you make that clear. I think that’s what people really like. Thank you, Sally. What do you think, Elizabeth? Closing thoughts? Well, I just really like the highlight for me was when you were talking about responsibility. And I don’t really know what hierarchy of responsibility means, but I do think you really hit on something that’s very neglected generally in these greater conversations, and it’s far beyond this live stream that individualistic responsibility that Dr. Peterson talks about is one thing, but there’s so much more than that. And I think that indeed it’s in the practice of responsibility that we make ourselves. I think that’s the, yeah, it’s the present scene of ourselves in the greater world and the co-creation that that instantiates that’s so important. So I just want to say thank you to all of you because these live streams of Mark are incredibly valuable to me. And I love listening to all the different voices. And yeah, as a retired teacher, I just see lots of potentiality, lots of potential in this group of people. And I think it’s really fun for me to watch. I think you’re all wonderful people, and it’s a privilege knowing you all. And nice to meet you, Alex. Thank you, Elizabeth. Yeah, that’s wonderful. It’s good to hear your feedback. It’s very important to me to hear your feedback in particular. Yeah, it’s good to get all this. I really appreciate that. What do you think, Alex? You get some closing thoughts? You can kind of go anywhere with it. No comment. We’ll just leave it. Did you enjoy this? Wrap it up. Yeah, I’m just relaxing right now. I haven’t listened to the JP Oliver Anthony thing yet. So I kind of I didn’t think I wanted to. Now I think I might anyway. So but I don’t know. Great. OK. Father Eric, closing thoughts. Put no trusted princes, immortal men in whom there is no help. Take their breath. They return to clay and their plans that day come to nothing. What was that? It’s from the Psalms. I can’t remember which really. Yeah, that’s the grail Salter. So it’s a little more poetic than more straightforward translation. Excellent. Excellent. Look, I covered a lot of random but not so random stuff. Right. This is kind of a new format. So if you guys like it, let me know. If you don’t like it, let me know. Right. Improvements, whatever. I did think about doing although I couldn’t actually do it this week anyway if I wanted to like a weekly wrap up thing. I know a lot of people like that with the TV key Q&A streams that he was doing weekly wrap up sometimes once a month or monthly wrap ups. So I was thinking of that that sort of format, you know, and if you like the old stuff better with the monologues, let me know. Right. With the single topic. Right. We’re trying to circumambulate and locate where people need to hear things and where stuff needs to come from and what formats to use. You know, so put that up in the comments. Right. I really appreciate all the engagement in the live chat, especially with a lot of live chat. And of course, I appreciate all the guests that come on. And it was wonderful meeting all the new people. And look, I mean, I hope everybody has a wonderful week. I’m going to try and do this again next week. We’ll see based on feedback and stuff what we find. If you haven’t seen the talk that I did with Adam, there a lot of the stuff about hierarchy is in that talk, especially the second half of the talk. I know it’s long. It’s over two hours. But Adam’s really good, as always. And a lot of this framework for this idea came from that talk. We did that talk quite a while ago. I apologize. It took a long time to get it edited and spit out the door. But I got it out. I got another video coming at least. And then I got to do a lot more recording. But thank you, everybody. I’m going to shut the stream down. And I hope to see you all next week. And have a wonderful time. Thank you.